slkinsey

From what I understand, Pernod and Ricard tweaked the formula when they transitioned from absinthe to pastis. Pastis is sweeter, lower in proof and more anise-forward than the absinthes I've tried. So, yea, it's not the same thing as "absinthe without the wormwood" but it was developed as a replacement product after the ban. I was mostly responding to your questions as to whether Pernod currently makes absinthe and whether Pernod's (now) signature product is a pastis. The answer to both is "yes." I guess you must be talking about redistilling spirits in one of those little glass rigs you get in catalogs? Yes, I suppose it's true that there is less danger of things like methanol-induced blindness if one is redistilling a product that has already been distilled. I'd have to be convinced that the end product was worth all the cost and trouble, though. For entirely homemade rigs, there is always some risk that materials or contruction will lead to a dangerous result through contamination or fire hazard. I think it depends a lot on how much you're making, where you're making it and whether any of your neighbors decide to complain. Don't be so sure that the law doesn't care. Years ago my family was spending time in our house in the mountains of Western North Carolina and were burning a fire from logs that happened to be a little too wet. Marshals showed up to make sure we weren't 'shining. Also, you may think it's silly to suppose that the "kid" might get busted, but don't be so sure it won't happen. All it takes is for one person to get a stomach bug, decide that it was the cook's fault and complain to the wrong person. Or, all it takes is an environment with a reactionary and hypervigilant DOH -- like we have in New York City right now -- to get wind of it. There are plenty of things that seem like they're "no big deal -- the police can't be bothered" right up to the point where the police decide they can be bothered. For example, people have been smoking cannabis on the street in NYC for decades and the police largely couldnt' care less so long as the smokers are discreet (although I wouldn't recommend doing it if a copp is standing next to you). Nevertheless, I have a friend who spent the night in jail for doing it.

There's more to it than that. In order to cook effetively in a wok, you need a specialized burner. Cooking in a sauté pan, on the other hand, is done over a regular Western-style burner. In my opinion, if you want to "stir fry" on a regular home stove, you're better off with a sauté pan. Note, for example, that Ah Leung uses a sauté pan in his Chinese cooking pictorials. The two pans both work for more-or-less the same kind of cooking because of the differnet burners. In general, woks suck over traditional Western burners. I've done side-by side tests, and a heavy sauté pan always performed better. If you're unsure about what you want, I think the best way to approach it is to ask the question: what is it that I want to do on the stove that I can't do well enough right now? Then, once you know what you would like to do better/easier, you have a basis for choosing a cookware shape, design and material.

Mussina, I'm curious as to the age of these customers. I ask because one thing I've noticed about my parents (now in their early 70s) is that they can't eat as much as they used to be able to, and often end up taking something home with them -- although I'm sure they would prefer simply having smaller portions. Combine a decreased capacity for food with the trend of increasing portion sizes and not wanting to push away a half-eaten portion, and splitting an entre per couple sometimes seems like a reasonable option.

A few things: - Yes, Pernod makes pastis. Pastis is, more or less, a lower alcohol, wormwood-free "absinthe-like" beverage that was developed by absinthe makers like Pernod after absinthe was banned in France. Pernod and Ricard are not only examples of pastis, but I would argue that they define the category. - Yes, Pernod was originally a producer of absinthe. And, yes, they are making absinthe once again. In addition, Jade makes a "replica" bottling of absinthe that attempts to recreate the original pre-ban Pernod Fils absinthe. - Most homemade "absinthe" is not distilled, and redistillation following infusion is necessary fo make real absinthe. Several European countries developed traditions of home-distilled absinthe during the ban years. That said, home distillation is no joke. You can hurt yourself and I wouldn't advise anyone to become involved in home distillation with a cavalier attitude or without taking the time to become properly educated and equipped. And, of course, it's against the law in significant quantities.

There is no difference. The difference between "stir fry" and "sauté" is that the former is tyically applied to cooking Asian foods (classically, in a wok) and the latter is typically applied to cooking Western foods. The term "stir fry" is a relatively modern addition to the English cooking lexicon (mid 20th century), and is generally credited to Buwei Yang Chao in the book "How to Cook and Eat in Chinese" where it was used to describe the chǎo technique -- although the complete chǎo technique involces a bit more specificity than what we have now come to think of as "stir frying" -- which generally now means "tossing around a bunch of Asian ingredients over high heat." More information stir-frying here on wikipedia.

Cool idea. Here's one thing that I've been thinking about: Most so-called "ethnic" restaurants in America tend to fall into the "cheap eats" category. This is certainly true of most Asian cuisines (with some notable upscale counter-examples as well as the exception of things like sushi and kaiseki). What I've noticed is that most cheap eats places tend to have a number of dishes they're good at doing, but will also often have a substantial section of the menu that is mediocre at best (this seems to be less true of restaurants in the middlebrow-and-higher strata). Often, with more familiar cuisines, it's relatively easy to figure out what to order: don't get the brisket at an Eastern Carolina barbecue joint. With Asian foods, it's sometimes less clear. A good example might be Grand Sichuan: They have a large number of outstanding (Sichuan) dishes on the menu, but also a shockingly large number of entirely mediocre (Chinese restaurt standard) dishes on the menu. Even that is a relatively easy one: order the Sichuan dishes (hey, its in the name stupid!). Sometimes it's less clear. For example, the dish you want to have at Great NY Noodletown is not the noodles, but rather the outstanding baby pig. So, clearly one has to have some way of finding out what are the correct things to order. Sometimes, it works out fine to simply ask the waitstaff. This has introduced me to many interesting dishes at Grand Sichuan. But the staff there was friendly and knew me well. I can't say that I've found the staff at, e.g., New Green Bo (another place I've been dozens of times) similarly friendly and approachable. So that won't always work. Clearly one has to develop some strategies for determining what are the best things to order. If it's a fairly busy place that I don't know, I like to order only a little to start and then see what other people are eating. "I want an order of what those guys are having" has often been a successful strategy. If you notice that half the people are having one dish, that's almost always what you want to have. Anyway, I hope and assume you'll offer ideas and strategies for making these kinds of decisions. A couple of other things it would be interesting to hear about: - When did it become commonplace to offer free sesame cold noodles with takeout orders? And, secondarily, is it true that Manhattan is linked with a secret network of subterranean pipes, pumping untold quantities of the exact same sesame cold noodles to all the Chinese restaurants on the island? - What about other methods that Chinese restaurants use to entice customers? There are several mediocre UWS Chinese places that offer free box-o-wine white wine to customers who are waiting in line. - Chinese/Cuban? Chinese/Peruvian? What's up with that? - Why are so many Chinese places adding sushi, and would anyone really want to eat that sushi? - Why don't fortune cookies give fortunes anymore?

These are all made at home... Espresso: never any milk Cappuccino: 1:2 ratio of espresso to hot foamed milk French press: sometimes black, sometimes just a touch of heavy cream Drip: a touch of heavy cream Iced: espresso shaken with sweetened condensed milk, or extra-strong drip coffee with half and half

What I'm saying is that radio and television (not to mention post WW II social pressures for universal American sameness and conformity) are what made things like the hamburger and fried chicken ubiquitous in America. Mass media is what made it possible for a food like the hamburger to become universal "American food." And I think you'll find that things like hamburgers and hot dogs and fried chicken weren't well-known or popular all across America 100 years ago. In fact, I'm quite sure that the American ubiquity of the hamburger can be positively linked to Ray Kroc and the spread of McDonald's restaurants across the country, which started in the 1950s. Much the same could be said about your example of American menu items, which I also think you will find were not so universally the same across the country 100 or even 50 years ago. What made their sameness possible was, again, the American monoculture created by television, movies and radio; mass transportation; franchizing; and outfits like Sysco. I can say with little fear of contradition that if you walked into a diner or little restaurant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama or Deport, Texas or Neenah, Wisconsin in 1950, you would not find a lot of the things on your list of "universal American foods" on the menu. I'm not sure it makes sense to use America-wide culinary trends as an example to support the idea that "cuisine" is not grounded in location. First of all, most if not all foods we can reasonably think of as "American" began as regional foods that were tied to a specific location and culture within America. Second, whatever foods or culinary trends did become America-wide did so primarily as a result of modern mass media, franchizing, rapid transportation, government propaganda and advertising campaigns (this gave us the hamburger, the hot dog, fried chicken, chicken pot pie, the "American breakfast," roast turkey for Thanksgiving Dinner, etc, etc, etc.). Third, given the fact that these American foods became widespread only or mosty due to modern technology, I'm not sure it makes sense to apply these same criteria to foods which grew up hundreds of years ago when the world was a much more regional/local place (especially in Eastern Europe). Certainly one may decide to define a "cuisine" as a collection of dishes. But this doesn't make much sense to me. Is "American strip mall" a cuisine? How about "fried straight from the frozen Sysco bag cuisine"? "Megacorporation fast food cuisine"? I would argue that none of these things is a "cuisine" and I would also argue that neither "general-menu American" nor "pan-European French brasserie" is a "cuisine." However, I suppose one might reasonably put all of these things into a separate and distinct category of "professional restaurant cuisines." But no, "general-menu American" is not a "cuisine" the same way that French home cooking is a "cuisine." According to your argument, Ashkenazi Jewish cooking might seek to be labeled a "cuisine" that is distinct and separate from Eastern European cuisine, rather than a subcategory of the same, under the criteria of "look at list of dishes and draw various conclusions about the purpose and development of the food." That would put it under the same definition that makes "megacorporation fast food" a "cuisine" -- or, for that matter, that might make "vegan cooking" a "cuisine." I think this shortchanges Ashkenazi Jewish cooking. But, more to the point, this is not the same definition that makes French, Chinese, Indian, etc. food a "cuisine." I think that, if one steps back and tries to look at it dispassionately, it makes the most sense to think of Ashkenazi Jewish cooking as an interesting, largely derivative subset of Eastern European cuisine that includes many wonderful dishes. This is illustrated by the difficulty in modifying any of these recipes and still keeping them "Ashkenazi Jewish" instead of "Eastern European." Let's return to the dumpling soup again. If you start with Grießnockerl and change out the semolina for ground up stale bread, or any other coarse grain, you still have an "Eastern European dish." If you start with matzoh ball soup, first of all you're starting with something that already seems both "Ashkenazi Jewish" and "Eastern European," and if you change out the matzoh for anything else the dish is no longer "Ashkenazi Jewish" and joins "Eastern European." This sort of thing strongly suggests that the most logical way to think of Ashkenazi Jewish cooking is as a subcategory of Eastern European cuisine.

I'm not sure you've really established that for American cuisine, nor am I sure it's true in general. I think it's safe to say that all regional cuisines are tied to location, but how is a hamburger tied to location? Any dish that enjoys popularity all over America can't possibly be tied to location because America is too big to be considered a location for these purposes. No, it's not too big. The America that made the hamburger into an "American food" is the America of a mass-media induced monoculture. I should point out that there is considerable dispute as to whether there truly is such a thing as "American cuisine." Again, we may be running into the issue where we can identify a few "American dishes" but they may not add up to any kind of meaningful "American cuisine." This observation actually supports my thought about cuisine and location. Yes, it's true that one can't necessarily say that "this food is French" on one side of the border and "this food is Italian" on the other side. This is because the geography, ingredients, etc. are largely the same on either side of the border. Whether there is something that ties together all of French cooking is another question. More geographical diversity means that there will be more uniquely diversified cooking and culinary culture in a smaller area.

I still don't see how it's possible to have the discussion without a standard for determining the uniqueness of dishes. What's the standard for determining, for example, whether the Russian svatovska juha (vegetable soup with semolina dumplings) is or isn't the same dish as the German/Austrian Grießnockerl in broth. There are semolina dumplings in many European cuisines, including the variety of gnocchi made from semolina. Are they all the same thing? The answer, I think, is that they're not terribly different (although it would appear that svatovska juha is more different from Grießnockerl in broth than matzoh ball soup). But what makes Russian cuisine different from Bavarian cuisine is a wide range of ingredients, characteristic approaches to ingredients and signature dishes. The point is that we're not going to distinguish Bavarian cuisine from Russian cuisine based on dishes with similarities as close as svatovska juha and Grießnockerl in broth. Also, I think it's reasonable that one could observe that there is a sufficient commonality among the cooking of the Slavic peoples to make the argument that there is "Slavic cuisine" and that Russian, Polish, Ukrainian, etc. represent regional variations similar to the regional variations in Italian cooking (which may actually be more varied). So, I'm curious if you can forward support for the idea of a unique "Jewish cuisine" that is distinct from "Eastern European" cuisine in any meaningful way other than the fact that it is/was kosher? What ties it together in a culinary sense? I agree that the "different dish" theory is not essential, but your point doesn't necessarily support the idea of "Jewish food" as a distinct cuisine. Because, for example, one could certainly say: "Yea, I agree that matzo ball soup is a different dish. So what? According to any culinary criteria, it's entirely within the scope of non-Jewish Eastern European cooking. How does matzoh ball soup deserve to be considered 'from a different cuisine' when dumplings made by the gentile down the street with old rye bread don't?" I guess what I'd like to see is a list of distinct dishes/treatments and an cuisine-based way of setting them apart from other traditions as well as tying them together into a culinary tradition of their own. I think it's certainly possible to say "this dish and this dish and this dish are Jewish" but that doesn't necessarily equal a "cuisine." There are some parallels, to be sure. But the main difference is that all the things you're talking about that make "American food" into "American food" have to do with the fact that they're taking place here, in America. Barbecue evolved into the American classic that it is precisely because of the new and unique culture, ingredients and cooking styles that grew out of living together in a new location. What makes the idea of "Jewish cuisine" different from all other cuisines, is that all the other cuisines are tied to location.

I think what people have been saying is that, in America anyway, "Jewish food" is seen as something different from "kosher food." Most Americans would see your kosher Moroccan food as "kosher Moroccan food" and not necessarily as "Jewish food." This certainly seems to be the sense in which savethedeli and others have been using "Jewish food." I think the original premise of this thread is that fewer and fewer people are eating these foods (especially outside of the holidays). Most people seem to think it's because they are increasingly viewed as bland, old fashioned, unhealthy and out of step with current culinary trends.

Make new Jewish food that's consistent with the times and the lifestyles/preferences of modern-day American Jews. It's unclear to me that one can update or reinterpret Jewish adaptations based on 200 year-old Eastern European cooking without loosing whatever it was that made these foods seem "Jewish" to American Jews. This will be difficult, however, because most modern-day American Jews aren't kosher, and Jewish dietary law is precisely the thing that produced adaptations like matzoh ball soup. Without the dietary laws, how can new Jewish food be created? I'm interested: do you have any ideas how to update/reinterpret/reinvigorate/lighten/modernize matzoh ball soup, kreplach, kugel, cholent, knishes, etc. and still keep them "Jewish"? One of the major issues is going to be that people today want to eat lighter, healther, less starchy/fatty food that, as Fat Guy put it "emphasizes fresh ingredients and bright flavors."

coquus, the acid in lemon juice is primarily citric acid. I'm not sure what effect that has on gluten. The effect of acetic acid on gluten is easily observable. Just make up a dough of flour and vinegar. You'll notice that the dough won't hold together, and you can see the gluten sheets ripping apart like an overfermented sourdough. You may have something there with respect to yeast inhibition, though. Acetic acid (and a low pH in general) does inhibit growth and activity of bread yeast.

Well, I'd say this: Grießnockerl are dumplings made with fat (butter) and a fairly granular, golden-colored grain (semolina), served in meat broth. Beef broth is common, but I've had lots of Grießnockerl in chicken broth. Juniper and nutmeg are not standard or required. Knadlach are dumplings made with fat (schmaltz, a kosher substitution for butter) and a fairly granular, golden-colored grain-substitute (matzoh meal), served in meat broth. Chicken seems standard in the United States (I don't know if this is true in Eastern Europe). Some people use seltzer to lighten the dumplings, but this is by no means universal. So... yea, I'd say that the evidence trends towards Knadlach being a kosher adaptation of Grießnockerl. That said, Grießnockerl in broth isn't consumed much in the United States, so most people are unfamiliar with it. Matzoh ball soup, on the other hand, is common among American Jews and is fairly unique among foods familiar to Americans. Therefore, it is popularly identified as "Jewish food" here. If, on the other hand, Grießnockerl in broth was ubiquitous here, this would not be the case and Knadlach in broth would be considered a Jewish variant much like the coq au vin variation described by Swisskaese. Also, if I were to make matzoh balls using matzoh meal, butter and a touch of nutmeg, and put those matzoh balls in beef broth, would it no longer be "matzoh ball soup"? (Also, isn't markk's post above showing Knadlach with beef?) Of course Knadlach in broth can also be considered a dish that is separate from Grießnockerl in broth. But the questions are how different and whether this can be seen as the basis for proclaiming a distinct and unique "cuisine" as opposed to a religion-based practice of adaptation that has resulted in some different derivative dishes.

cakewalk, see the last paragraph you quoted for reasons this is true with respect to some dishes. Also, we of course don't have much of a population of French-derived Jews and their cooking in America (or elsewhere around the world) whereas we do have a sizeable population of Eastern European-derived Jews and their cooking. I would suggest that matzoh balls are only considered "Jewish food" because they are made with matzoh, a uniquely Jewish ingredient. If you sat down a bowl of matzoh ball soup in front of someone in who is used to eating Grießnockerl soup every day, it's likely they wouldn't tell much difference. Just because matzoh ball soup has made it into the "Jewish food cannon" for most American Ashkenazi Jews doesn't mean much. Chicken parm heros have made it into the "Italian food canon" for most Italian-Americans, but it's still not really Italian food.

This is an odd list, in my opinion. It lists potable bitters like Fernet Branca and Campari on the same list as non-potable bitters like Angostura, which doesn't make any sense to me.

It could be there as a flavor enhancer. It's also the case that acetic acid wrecks gluten, which has a variety of effects.

Right. This is the same point I have also been arguing. Your coq au vin example is an interesting one. But, to be clear, don't think Fat Guy and I are arguing the same point. I'm in your camp, suggesting that "Jewish food" consists essentially of kosher adaptations of the cuisine of the country in which Jews live(d). savethedeli, and to a certain extent Fat Guy, seem to be arguing that "Jewish food" exists as a distinct cuisine in the same way that, e.g., Italian, Indian and Chinese food exist as distinct cuisines. I do think it's possible that, once Ashkenazi Jews moved out of Eastern Europe to other parts of the world, bringing with them their Eastern European culinary traditions and retaining different "old world" dishes in their new homes than non-Jewish Eastern European immigrants, the Jewish adaptations of old world Eastern European dishes that were preserved by immigrant Jews came to be regarded by Jew and non-Jew alike as "Jewish food" rather than "Eastern European food" in the "new world."

While I agree with your general point about broad versus medium versus small strokes of the brush, I'm not so sure about some of your other conclusions. First, it's not clear to me that we necessarily think of, e.g., Umbriano cooking as being an entirely distinct "cuisine" from Marchegiano cooking. Rather, they are closely related culinary aesthetics that evolved certain distinct dishes and methods largely based on geographically-mediated differences having to do with availability of certain ingredients, etc. It's not like the cooking style changes drastically when one crosses the border from one region to another, and the reason is that the geography and availability of ingredients, etc. are the same on either side of the border. This is fundamentally different from the way Jewish cooking evolved in, e.g., Eastern European communities, where the availability of ingredients and cultural/culinary influences were the same, but the Jewish community did/didn't use certain ingredients, combinations and cooking techniques (for religious reasons). I'm not sure that makes the Jewish cooking in those communities a "cuisine" that is distinct from the non-Jewish cooking. Unless, of course, one reduces the brush to the level of narrowness that lets us say that the cooking on the North side of Napoli is a "cuisine" that is distinct from the cooking on the South side of Napoli. I also have to take some exception with your idea that "the average Jewish dish is probably more different from its East European ancestor than the average Italian regional dish is from the one the next region over." There is more difference between the regional dishes near the coast as opposed to in the mountains of the same Italian region than there is between the average Jewish dish and the cooking of its Eastern European region of origin. The food in Rome and the food in Perugia? Way more different. The reason is that the geography and ingredients are different (the reason Italian regional styles have so much more variation than, e.g., Eastern European regional styles that extend through a much larger area is that the geography and ingredients in Italy change much more drastically). To stick with the Italian example, we have carciofi alla Giudia ("Jewish style artichokes") from Rome. For sure this is a "Jewish dish." Heck, it's even in the name. But are artichokes fried in extra virgin olive oil -- and, for that matter, the cooking of Trastevere in general -- so different from all other Roman cooking that is belongs to a separate "cuisine"? No, not really. To make another example, are matzo balls so different from Grießnockerl that they represent an entirely distinct class of cooking, a different "cuisine"? Or is this difference more similar to the kind of variations one might find between one town and the next town down the river. I would suggest the latter (have a look at some Grießnockerl in broth here -- if I only showed you the picture, you'd think it was matzoh ball soup). Part of the question I'd ask is "can you eat a certain dish and tell it's 'Jewish' without being told that it is?" So, for example, can you eat a bowl of meat dumplings in broth and say "this is kreplach as opposed to any of a dozen or more other Eastern European meat dumplings in broth"? If not, I'd suggest that kreplach are simply "Eastern European kosher meat dumplings" and not part of a distinctively different cuisine on the merits of the food. If you want to argue that it's the cultural connection, and not any thing intrinsic about the food, that ties together "Jewish food," I'd go along with that. But, as I've been saying, this makes it very difficult to update or reinterpret these foods and still keep their "Jewishness" -- especially to those living outside the culture in which the dish evolved. Well, undoubtedly he said that with a lot of humor mixed in there. But with a great deal of truth as well, because of Tucker's cantorial background. A lot of the unabashed wailing (and I mean that in a good way) that cantors do is frequently a very good thing in singing opera, and something that more restrained singers don't do (though in truth I'd have thought it applied as much to singing Bel Canto as Puccini). What is know to Italian tenors as the "Italianate sob" is know to cantors as the "cantorial sob". Hmm. As an Italianate operatic tenor myself, I have to say that I both agree and disagree here. Cantors do often sing with what we in opera might call "slancio," but the singing method is often too tense to fill a large theater over an orchestra and extend through the full operatic tenor range without breaking down eventually. This may simply be a matter of technique and training, or may be a stylistic difference. I'd also argue that the "sob" is only appropriate in Italian opera in the verismo style (post 1890 or so), and certainly never in belcanto opera (roughly 1810 to 1840). Which style came first is hard to say. Likely they evolved in parallel, perhaps each influencing the other back and forth as vocal styles and techniques changed dramatically over the course of the 1800s. To bring it back to food, this is likely a similar situation to the way Jewish and non-Jewish foods evolved within a given culture, except that everyone cooks and eats while not everyone sings professionally, so I would expect a much greater level of commonality in cooking influences, styles, etc.

Back some years ago the legendary Italian tenor Franco Corelli, who was just coming the Metropolitan opera with great fanfare and consequently stealing the thunder of legendary (Jewish) American tenor, Richard Tucker, asked Tucker for his advice on how to sing Puccini. Tucker was said to have replied, "to sing it right, you have to be Jewish." But the link back in post #6 on this thread would seem to hint that it might not always be like this, in every situation. Tucker is considered one of the greatest operatic tenors of the 20th century in the Italian and French repertoire, and certainly Corelli's equal. And, for that matter, the tenor considered by many (including myself) to have been the greatest of the 20th century in the Italian and French repertoire was a Swede, Jussi Björling.

Back some years ago the legendary Italian tenor Franco Corelli, who was just coming the Metropolitan opera with great fanfare and consequently stealing the thunder of legendary (Jewish) American tenor, Richard Tucker, asked Tucker for his advice on how to sing Puccini. Tucker was said to have replied, "to sing it right, you have to be Jewish."

People would say it was a "New York" restaurant.

What I am suggesting is that the foods that were cooked/consumed by Jews in, e.g., Poland, Hungary, Russia, wherever, were usually not meaningfully different from foods cooked/consumed by non-Jews in those localities, except that the Jewish foods were changed to make them kosher. You seem to be suggesting that we can simply say, "lots of Jews eat hummus and consider it 'Jewish food,' therefore hummus is 'Jewish food.'" Kasha, to use one of your examples, is a food that is consumed by millions of people who are not Jewish. In fact, many if not most of the people who regularly ate kasha 100 years ago (sadly, this may still be true today) were actively antisemitic. How could that possibly make kasha "Jewish food"?! Now, chopped liver is a slightly different case. I could go along with the idea that chicken or beef liver and onions cooked in chicken fat then ground and mixed with chopped hard cooked eggs is "Jewish food." But it's also a fact that it's very similar to other, non-Jewish foods from Europe. This goes to one of your earlier queries as to "updating" and "reinterpreting" Jewish food. To what extent can chopped liver be changed before it is no longer "Jewish." The answer is that it can't be changed very much. The reason is because, if it changes too much, it just becomes like all the other myriad liver and other meat pates, mousses, spreads, etc. that are found throughout Europe. So, this makes it fairly difficult to update and reinterpret chopped liver and end up with something that is both meaningfully different and still seems like "Jewish food." The difference between Jewish cooking and your example of China/Italy and the noodle (assuming that pasta did come to Europe from China, which seems to not be true) is that pasta cookery had hundreds of years to develop and evolve on its own in Italy, where it was, for all intents and purposes, completely separated from the influence of China and Chinese cooking. Italian pasta cookery and Chinese noodle cookery have almost nothing in common. Jewish cooking, on the other hand, developed, evolved, was influenced by and largely derived from the prevailing culture in which Jews lived. If 90% of the Jews in the world had lived in Israel for the last 500 years and had developed a unique and distinctive cuisine there, that would be more like Chinese, Italian, Indian, etc. food. Chihiran, you might want to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew As to your question about the Thai meal, I think most people in America would say that it's Kosher Thai food, and not "Jewish food," per se. This is a source of some confusion, and part of the discussion here. What's interesting is that matzo ball soup in which butter was used to make the matzo balls (which would make the soup non-kosher, assuming they are in chicken broth) would likely be considered "Jewish food" by many.

I would point out, however, that "kosher" doesn't necessarily equal "distinctly/uniquely Jewish cuisine." Take a kosher chicken and roast it with potatoes and carrots. You've got a meal that most any observant Jew would eat. However, is this "Jewish food"? Millions of non-Jews who regularly cook the same thing (with or without using a kosher chicken) say "no." This illustrates part of the point I was making... Fried or baked dough stuffed with potato (knishes), crepes (blintzes), buckwheat groats (kasha), meat-stuffed pasta (kreplach), potato-stuffed pasta (verenekes), all the Middle Eastern dishes (hummus, matbucha, harissa, etc.) and many of the ingredients (buckwheat, couscous) are hardly "Jewish" in any intrinsic way. Some of them are simply not Jewish (being either Arabic or ubiquitous in the culture of origin), and many of the others are not necessarily recognizable as "Jewish" unless one is told beforehand (are kreplach in broth distinguishable from tortellini in brodo?).

I agree with Steven's point upthread that the important thing tying Jewish food together is more of a shared cultural experience (and, historically, adherence to Jewish dietary rules) rather than a uniquely devloped and distinct cuisine. I'm curious if anyone can point to "Jewish" dishes that are don't have a direct analogue in the non-Jewish culture from which they sprang. Below are some commonly cited examples of Jewish food which come to mind, together with the non-Jewish example in parentheses: <blockquote>Chopped liver (countless non-Jewish liver and other meat pates) Gefilte fish (pike and other fish quenelles) Stuffed cabbage (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Matzo ball soup (semolina dumpling soup) Latkes (potato pancakes not uniquely Jewish) Cholent (countless non-Jewish long-simmered stews) Hummus (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Kibbeh (not particularly Jewish in the "home culture") Brisket (Jewish preparations don't seem particularly unique/distinctive) Flanken (Jewish preparations don't seem particularly unique/distinctive) Blintzes (crepes, crespelle, etc.) Kreplach (ravioli, tortellini, pelmeni, pierogi, vareniki, etc.) Kasha (not distinctively Jewish in the "home culture") Corned beef (salted beef is ubiquitous to most beef-eating cultures) Pastrami (similarly spiced meats -- sheep, pork, etc. -- ubiquitous in Romania) Kugel (all the various types have direct anologues in the "home culture" -- e.g., lasagne al forno, mac and cheese, etc.)</blockquote> Of these, I can see a good argument for pastrami in America growing into a uniquely and distinctively Jewish food, and some individual kugel recipes seem fairly distinctive (although, of course, a noodle or potato casserole is hardly unique). I'm just trying to think of Jewish foods that would seem foreign on the table of a non-Jew in the "home culture" where the Jewish dish originated. For example, we all think of matzo ball soup as being "Jewish" -- and yet, when I spent a summer in Salzburg, I was often fed a lunch of semolina dumplings, which have the same, slightly granular texture as matzo balls, in chicken broth. Can anyone make the case for foods/dishes that are uniquely and distinctively Jewish, to the extent that they could be changed/reinterpreted and still keep their "Jewish food-ness" to the extent that this has happened with, e.g., Italian or French dishes? I wonder if part of the reason we associate these (mostly Ashkenazi, for reasons Steven explained above) recipes with "Jewish food" in America is that religious Jews here tended to preserve their "old country" culinary traditions and other cultural identifiers far more than other immigrant cultures, which have tended to assimilate (and disseminate their culinary traditions) far more. This may be related to the fact that Jews have historically been separated from their "home cultures" to one degree or another, partly through their own choice and partly because of various persecutions and discriminations. So, to return back to an earlier example, whereas many of the German and Austrian immigrants may have given up their culinary tradition of semolina dumplings in chicken broth in favor of keeping the sausages and beer, Jewish immigrants kept their matzo ball soup and this dish became "Jewish food" to most Americans, rather than "the Jewish version of the same dish everyone in town is making -- which is most likely what it originally was." To follow-up on one of savethedeli's questions, this makes it hard to step out of the box and "reinterpret" too much without ending up with a dish that is more "reinterpreted Eastern European" than "reinterpreted Jewish." So, for example, what makes the Tabla soup Steven describes "Jewish" is the fact that matzoh is used in the dumplings. If he served the same dish in May with semolina dumplings, it suddenly wouldn't seem so "Jewish" anymore. To go even further back, to the main premise of this thread: given the somewhat narrow confines of what makes us think of many of these foods as "Jewish" in America, and given the fact that most of these foods come from Eastern European culinary traditions that are increasingly unpopular (for reasons Steven has outlined well) here, and especially given the fact that these dishes as we know them come from Eastern European culinary traditions of a hundred or more years ago (which makes them all the more out of touch with current American culinary trends and preferences) conbined with the fact that it's difficult to change these dishes too much without most people feeling like they have "lost their Jewishness" -- well, that equals less eating of "Jewish food" in America. In fact, even observant Jews who live in America are likely trending their culinary preparations and eating habits away from what most Americans would associate with "Jewish food" -- they're just doing so within the confines of Jewish dietary restrictions. So, really, when we ask "why aren't people eating as much Jewish food today?" we're really asking "why aren't people eating as much Jewish versions of heavy, 19th century Eastern European food today?"