Julia Child's Kitchen

[Jaymes]

I believe that even in the "isolationist, ignorant" U.S., most people knew that French food was good. Even people that had never actually eaten any had certainly heard plenty about its wonders.

But I also believe that we were unfamiliar with the names, the ingredients, the "advanced" techniques. It was intimidating. Maybe it was even too good, too "fancy" for plain old everyday us.

When Julia came along she first demystified the cuisine. She translated into English those unusual and unknowable French words for specific preparations, techniques and ingredients.

Then, she told us where we could purchase the ingredients, or in the cases where they were not available, what substitutions we could make. She demonstrated these magical techniques, whipping up delicious foods while she slugged down the wine and laughed her ass off.

We watched her. She was having a great time and the food looked fabulous. It didn't seem to be so difficult, so hard, so intimidating, so daunting after all. If she could do it, she told us, we could. And we believed her.

What Julia really did was to introduce us to a strange, foreign, unapproachable new neighbor. And in so doing, she turned that stranger into our friend.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

I believe that even in the "isolationist, ignorant" U.S., most people knew that French food was good. Even people that had never actually eaten any had certainly heard plenty about its wonders.

I just don't believe this to be true. I think Americans were afraid of anything foreign which is why they developed dishes like Chicken ala King. Even the ethnic cuisine America ate was dumbed down for American taste. Chow mein, shrimp in lobster sauce, spaghetti and meatballs. veal parmegian, were all created for the American palate. Haven't you seen the movie Big Night? Risotto was alien to people.

What Julia Child did was to begin the process of invalidating what used to pass for good food in America. We learned that people in other parts of the world did not look at food as something that was mass-marketed and bought in supermarkets. She showed us another way of life, a better way of life then the one we were taught to lead. And maybe more than anything else, she showed us that those people making daube ion Provence instead of eating Dinty Moore's beef stew weren't all that different from us as people. They just ate a hell of a lot better we did.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[hollywood]

And maybe more than anything else, she showed us that those people making daube ion Provence instead of eating Dinty Moore's beef stew weren't all that different from us as people. They just ate a hell of a lot better we did.

Hey! You can doctor up that Dinty Moore and...and....it's still not daube.

[srhcb]

I think Americans were afraid of anything foreign which is why they developed dishes like Chicken ala King. Even the ethnic cuisine America ate was dumbed down for American taste. Chow mein, shrimp in lobster sauce, spaghetti and meatballs. veal parmegian,  were all created for the American palate. Haven't you seen the movie Big Night? Risotto was alien to people.

What Julia Child did was to begin the process of invalidating what used to pass for good food in America. We learned that people in other parts of the world did not look at food as something that was mass-marketed and bought in supermarkets. She showed us another way of life, a better way of life then the one we were taught to lead. And maybe more than anything else, she showed us that those people making daube ion Provence instead of eating Dinty Moore's beef stew weren't all that different from us as people. They just ate a hell of a lot better we did.

I hardy think Americans were "afraid of anything foreign"? It just takes a while for habits and styles to change, especially for something as ingrained as the type of food we eat. There was no established "isolationist" trend involved, (in fact just the opposite can be argued just as well); just the gradual overcoming of an isolation based on physical and technological limitations.

Remember that even as late as the 1950's many families were only 2nd Generation Americans, and were themselves in the process of adapting Old World cooking to the abundance and convenience of American supermarkets.

The returning GI's, modern communications, especially television, and the luxury of being able to think or write about food in any respect other than "is there enough of it" set the stage for a person to function as the focal point of a "new" way to look at food, cooking and eating. Julia best and beautifully filled that bill.

I'm sorry, but I think that to read much more than that into it is revisionist History.

Edited January 6, 2003 by srhcb (log)

[Jaymes]

I believe that even in the "isolationist, ignorant" U.S., most people knew that French food was good. Even people that had never actually eaten any had certainly heard plenty about its wonders.

I just don't believe this to be true.

I don't know how old you are, Steve, but I don't have to "guess" what "America" was like in the 50's & 60's. I lived it.

[Rail Paul]

I think there's a danger in assuming all of America was eating the same food, and had the same (isolationist) attitudes which some folks, perhaps, had. The food in America today is more homogeneous and national today than at any time in the past.

Living in Paris, TX, or Athens, GA or Belgrade, MT or Potsdam, NY, in 1950, to select three examples, was probably more akin to 1900 than to 2000. You ate a diet similar to what your grandparents had eaten.

Julia Child, James Beard (in Gourmet), and Craig Claiborne were never read or seen by more than a small segment of the population. Even Graham Kerr was a minor, bi-coastal phenom. The population they influenced (many of us) has implemented those changes and been able to take the influences to new levels of profit and accomplishment.

Influential food figure of the 20th century? Ray Kroc.

[Jaymes]

I think there's a danger in assuming all of America was eating the same food, and had the same (isolationist) attitudes... etc.

Absolutely true. I got married in 1969 and can tell you for a fact that the number one wedding gift that year was a "Fondue Set" and that everyone was all agog over trying to make the "most authentic" "Swiss Fondue."

Also, I turned 25 that year and even by that age had lived all over the States - from Calif to Tex to Florida to New York, Nebraska, Kansas, et al.

And didn't meet many people who were oblivious to the reputation of French cooking...

Nor who were "afraid of anything foreign."

[hollywood]

And didn't meet many people who were oblivious to the reputation of French cooking...

Nor who were "afraid of anything foreign."

But they sure didn't want to eat snails, much less escargot.

[Jaymes]

And didn't meet many people who were oblivious to the reputation of French cooking...

Nor who were "afraid of anything foreign."

But they sure didn't want to eat snails, much less escargot.

Well - I suspect that you can select certain things from any cuisine that are particularly unappetizing to those who are not familiar with it.

But it does just so happen that during that time escargot in MY experience was very popular. Many people even enjoyed it due to the "shock" factor alone. My first memory of seeing someone eat it (and this is absolutely true) was in the late 50's at that famous big steakhouse (it may be called "Big Tex") on Route 66 in Amarillo where you order this giant steak and if you can eat it all in one hour, it's free.

Now this was the heart of "Bubba Land" by ANYONE'S definition. And the people at the next table were having escargot and I was absolutely fascinated at the prospect. I was about ten- or twelve-years-old at the time.

Furthermore, as a young married, my closest friend of that particular era had, as her "I'm taking this to a special party" dish, escargot, served (without the shells of course) hot in a chafing dish. You picked up them little fellers with a toothpick and placed them on a cracker or toast round.

So - I'm sorry - I'm just not buying this "we're so awful" stuff. I hate sweeping generalities, especially negative ones, and very VERY rarely find them to be true.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

I'm very confused. To disprove that America wasn't isolationist the examples used have been things like Chicken ala King and Shrimp Diablo etc. Those dishes would argue that America was isolationist because they are American constructs of pseudo-foreign dishes. And then Jaymes makes the point that in 1969 she got a fondue set. Well fondue is hardly an overwhelmingly popular European dish. The fondue craze was driven by a pots and pan company to sell the fondue pot. In fact, and we discussed this on some of the British food threads a while back, much of what housewives cooked was gotten from the companies that made our appliances and pots and pans. And to say the food needed to conform to the American supermarket, well hello...., if the people in 1952 were looking to buy chorizo and duck confit they would have carried it. But they didn't.

The point of this all is I think, that there is a great, big and wide food world out there that America ignored to buy packaged, mass-produced and frozen grocery products instead of adopting a way of life that traditionally delivered better quality food. That's the isolationist part. American turned inward for the answers to questions that had already been answered deacdes before by great European chefs. In 1952 when somebody went to roast a chicken, did they look for a recipe from a famous French chef? Of course not. That is what Julia and James Beard changed. They broke that isolationism. And it is one of the main reasons we eat better today.

[hollywood]

And didn't meet many people who were oblivious to the reputation of French cooking...

Nor who were "afraid of anything foreign."

But they sure didn't want to eat snails, much less escargot.

Well - I suspect that you can select certain things from any cuisine that are particularly unappetizing to those who are not familiar with it.

But it does just so happen that during that time escargot in MY experience was very popular. Many people even enjoyed it due to the "shock" factor alone. My first memory of seeing someone eat it (and this is absolutely true) was in the late 50's at that famous big steakhouse (it may be called "Big Tex") on Route 66 in Amarillo where you order this giant steak and if you can eat it all in one hour, it's free.

Now this was the heart of "Bubba Land" by ANYONE'S definition. And the people at the next table were having escargot and I was absolutely fascinated at the prospect. I was about ten- or twelve-years-old at the time.

Furthermore, as a young married, my closest friend of that particular era had, as her "I'm taking this to a special party" dish, escargot, served (without the shells of course) hot in a chafing dish. You picked up them little fellers with a toothpick and placed them on a cracker or toast round.

So - I'm sorry - I'm just not buying this "we're so awful" stuff. I hate sweeping generalities, especially negative ones, and very VERY rarely find them to be true.

I was kidding about the escargot (sorta). I grew up in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area at approximately the same time. The "foreign" food we had was Americanized Chinese, some spaghetti dinners made by Mr. Scottino at church benefits and --seemed foreign to us then--Tex-Mex. For home cooked, pizza, Chef Boyardee, Franco-American, etc. I question how readily available and if available how expensive the ingredients needed to make foreign food were at the time. Oddly, at a time when many American women were still at home and could have been learning to make these dishes (let's put aside dad making them), the impetus just wasn't there. We had steak, pot roast, canned tuna, casaroles, frozen/canned vegetables, what more did we need?

[Jaymes]

I'm very confused.

Yes, Steve. I know. But I'm trying to help. Despite the fact that one of my New Year's resolutions is to never, ever, under any circumstances, no matter what, argue with Steve Plotnicki, I can't seem to help myself.

And then Jaymes makes the point that in 1969 she got a fondue set. Well fondue is hardly an overwhelmingly popular European dish. The fondue craze was driven by a pots and pan company to sell the fondue pot.

My point (which, if you'll read the remainder of the bit about the fondue pots, you'll see) was that everyone I knew in the late 60's not only GOT a fondue pot, but was falling all over themselves trying to produce what they understood to be an "authentic Swiss fondue."

Now, even if in actuality there was never any such thing as a "Swiss fondue" or, for that matter, never even any such thing as the Swiss people at all, my point was (and I'll emphasize this time so that you won't overlook it) THE AMERICANS I KNEW WERE TRYING TO LEARN NEW AND "FOREIGN" PREPARATIONS.

And again - I don't have to wonder about, nor speculate, nor guess about, nor try to infer from movies, what the U.S. was like in those days. Because, I repeat, I WAS THERE.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Jaymes]

I question how readily available and if available how expensive the ingredients needed to make foreign food were at the time. 

Oddly, at a time when many American women were still at home and could have been learning to make these dishes (let's put aside dad making them), the impetus just wasn't there.  We had steak, pot roast, canned tuna, casaroles, frozen/canned vegetables, what more did we need?

That's absolutely right for most "American" families that were at least several generations removed from their immigrant ancestors. What more, indeed? Everybody got fed and now wasn't it about time for Ed Sullivan??

But they knew that there were other cuisines - and that the French had the reputation for having the best (in their own minds, at least).

And, just as I said, when Julia (and some others) came along and demystified French cuisine, methods, ingredients, language (and probably more important, offered easily-available substitutes for those expensive and unobtainable ingredients), the word "gourmet" entered the American psyche.

And housewives and other American home cooks became less intimidated and started giving it a try.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jaymes - One dish? That's what you are using as an example to show America was interested in European cuisine? How about the other four or five thousand dishes that we made up instead of using authentic recipes that came from other countries?

[Rail Paul]

I'm very confused. To disprove that America wasn't isolationist the examples used have been things like Chicken ala King and Shrimp Diablo etc. Those dishes would argue that America was isolationist because they are American constructs of pseudo-foreign dishes. And then Jaymes makes the point that in 1969 she got a fondue set. Well fondue is hardly an overwhelmingly popular European dish. The fondue craze was driven by a pots and pan company to sell the fondue pot. In fact, and we discussed this on some of the British food threads a while back, much of what housewives cooked was gotten from the companies that made our appliances and pots and pans. And to say the food needed to conform to the American supermarket, well hello...., if the people in 1952 were looking to buy chorizo and duck confit they would have carried it. But they didn't.

The point of this all is I think, that there is a great, big and wide food world out there that America ignored to buy packaged, mass-produced and frozen grocery products instead of adopting a way of life that traditionally delivered better quality food. That's the isolationist part. American turned inward for the answers to questions that had already been answered deacdes before by great European chefs. In 1952 when somebody went to roast a chicken, did they look for a recipe from a famous French chef? Of course not. That is what Julia and James Beard changed. They broke that isolationism. And it is one of the main reasons we eat better today.

Steve -

I'm missing your drift here. You obviously want to make the point that Americans are isolationist buffoons who ignore the great culinary lessons of Europe. That point has made made regularly from Andrew Jackson to Sinclair Lewis to HL Mencken to Henry Cabot Lodge (I). Doesn't make it any more or less correct, though. We go through waves of enthusiasm, like hoop skirts, coonskin caps and fondue. I'd argue sushi is in a wave of enthusiasm which started in California in the early 1990s, and is now in every strip mall in Alabama and Montana. Other than Iron Chef (on the lightly viewed FoodTV), I can't think of a whole lot of Japanese influence on food in the US, other than some rot described as "soy sauce."

Sushi and frozen food notwithstanding, perfectly valid American originals (chicken fried steak, mullet, 'possum stew, Cajun food, southern fried chicken, Maine / NH maple syrup pies) were in wide use during this period, and were favorably viewed by LaFayette and deTocqueville, among others. I'm pleased that some French techniques have made their way into US kitchens, and that we have returned the favor.

Even most French, until very recently, saw McDonalds, sandwiches and beer as enhancing their culinary patrimony. Although a few anti-globalists occasionally burn a store or two, the vast majority of French people seem to enjoy Mickey D's and a beer now and then.

If that wasn't true, McD wouldn't be opening even more stores in France, would they?

(BTW, my mother added the Fannie Farmer Cookbook as another 1950s food reference. Standard wedding present 1945-1955)

[hollywood]

Steve,

It was a big deal to have a President married to a woman named Bouvier and with a press secretary named Pierre but we managed. I think the point is some of us at least have come a long way baby. And for that matter so has the rest of the world. What value we put on this progress is another topic entirely. Perhaps if more Americans were familiar with Middle Eastern food, we wouldn't be about to stomp on Iraq.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But let's face it, we were buffoons. When I grew up (late 50's and 60's) my father's customers (he owned a kosher butcher shop in L.I.) aspired to be able to buy an entire rib of beef that he would butcher for them into individual steaks etc. so they could deep freeze them. Being able to afford that was a sign of affluence. But that's backwards because fresh meat tastes good and frozen meat tastes mediocre at best. So how could a sign of affluence be that you ate frozen meat?

This is what the curator means by isolationism (among other things.) There was no reason for America to reinvent what kind of meat tasted better, or how you did your shopping for meat. Countries with a tradition of eating fresh meat already knew the answer to that question. But it was Americas cultural isolation from the rest of the world that made it look inward for the answer to that question. It is even more amazing when you realize that many of the people who adopted these things (like freezing) were European immigrants and their children who came from fresh food cultures. Even my parents would freeze meat to use later instead of eating fresh meat. And my father owned the shop! How crazy is that? Do you think they had freezers where he came from near Bialystock, Poland? It's all an American construct that was driven by the appliance and mass-marketed foods industry.

[hollywood]

But let's face it, we were buffoons. When I grew up (late 50's and 60's) my father's customers (he owned a kosher butcher shop in L.I.) aspired to be able to buy an entire rib of beef that he would butcher for them into individual steaks etc. so they could deep freeze them. Being able to afford that was a sign of affluence. But that's backwards because fresh meat tastes good and frozen meat tastes mediocre at best. So how could a sign of affluence be that you ate frozen meat?

This is what the curator means by isolationism (among other things.) There was no reason for America to reinvent what kind of meat tasted better, or how you did your shopping for meat. Countries with a tradition of eating fresh meat already knew the answer to that question. But it was Americas cultural isolation from the rest of the world that made it look inward for the answer to that question. It is even more amazing when you realize that many of the people who adopted these things (like freezing) were European immigrants and their children who came from fresh food cultures. Even my parents would freeze meat to use later instead of eating fresh meat. And my father owned the shop! How crazy is that? Do you think they had freezers where he came from near Bialystock, Poland? It's all an American construct that was driven by the appliance and mass-marketed foods industry.

I vaguely recall some scheme whereby you would sign up to buy overpriced frozen sides of beef every so often and they would "give" you a freezer.

[Jaymes]

Jaymes - One dish? That's what you are using as an example to show America was interested in European cuisine? How about the other four or five thousand dishes that we made up instead of using authentic recipes that came from other countries?

Oh Geeze, Steve -

This is really a diabolical plot to make me totally eschew my New Year's resolutions, isn't it?

Next thing, I'll be finishing off this entire box of chocolates.

You don't believe anything I say, despite whatever empirical evidence I might offer you, so I know this is a fool's endeavor and you'd much rather think the absolute worst of poor, ignorant, isolationist, frightened, Dinty Moore- (which I don't think was even canning beef stew in those days) loving, prejudiced, simple us. And that I might just as well go out and argue with the hat rack beside my front door, but...

I agree with practically everyone else's comments on this thread. In many aspects, we WERE somewhat provincial; but to me, that doesn't have the negative tone with which you want to paint us. Even though many of us had not been exposed to foreign cuisine, by FAR the vast majority of Americans of the era became interested in trying, when the opportunity arose to explore other cuisines in a manner that was as easy as Julia made it appear. If that were not so, Julia would simply not have "made it." She, and her television show, and her books, wouldn't have been so popular if the American audience had not been "READY" for her. That just seems so simple to me. If we were truly the self-satisfied ignoramuses you depict, don't you see there would never have been a market for her?

Now (and please reread this paragraph before you post in response), to get to a more personal note - in 1969, I belonged to a "gourmet" club (the word was newly fashionable) in which we met every month to try to explore new and unfamiliar cuisines. I particularly remember "Caribbean night" for some reason, probably because I remember that particular dessert: Avocado Pie.

I used the fondue example, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE of what I saw as the national mood, not wishing to take the time and energy to go into EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE with which I am familiar wherein people of that era, my contemporaries, were experimenting with new and unusual and "foreign" foods.

I also recall that my father, along with a vast majority of the other men of the time, had been not that long back from fighting a war in Europe. They were full of stories of the foods of France and Italy in particular. In addition, many neighborhoods had grannies and grandpapas who spoke no English. I can recall on summer nights bicycling past their houses (no air-conditioning in those days and windows and doors were open) and inhaling the aromas of international cuisines of all types.

At one point, our next-door neighbor's wife was Thai, and I remember even my Irish mother (not a particularly good nor adventuresome cook) asking the woman to come to our house and show my mother how to prepare fried rice.

But you'd rather think the worst, so fine, go ahead.

The rest of us were/are awful in every way. And you are a sophisticated, urbane, educated, intellectual seeker of the finest waging a lonely battle.

My heart goes out.

And now, back to those chocolates.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Jaymes]

(BTW, my mother added the Fannie Farmer Cookbook as another 1950s food reference. Standard wedding present 1945-1955)

Yep, and I've got my original copy. Along with Joy of Cooking, and the "red checkerboard" cookbook.

[hollywood]

The rest of us were/are awful in every way.  And you are a sophisticated, urbane, educated, intellectual seeker of the finest waging a lonely battle.

It was worth repeating.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jaymes - I do not know what any of what you said has to do with learning to eat cassoulet, foie gras or any of the other foods that Julia Child taught us about? You can characterize the food we ate prior to her emergence any way you want. But it won't detract from her place of importance nor will it change isolationist for being a proper description of American food culture before she came along. And if you want to see American isolationism at it's best, get out your copy of Fannie Farmer or Betty Crocker. Or maybe we can make some Betty Crocker Crescent Rolls? Today we know those rolls as croissants. You know why? Because in the 50's we were isolationist so we had to Americanize the name because people wouldn't accept the French name. Today we are more accepting of foreign cultures so we use the correct name. In fact, the correct name has significantly more market value and the Americanized name has lost its value as a result.

[Jaymes]

There is something else at play here that, if you were not around in those days, you might not understand.

Much of this (then) "new" processed, frozen, etc., stuff that we are now decrying was, in the 40's & 50's considered to be "modern." The days of the "ice box" (with real ice, remember?) had passed. Refrigeration and freezers and modern canning and processing techniques had just been discovered.

And anyone who didn't rush right out and take advantage of this new technology was considered to be hopelessly old-fashioned.

That also came greatly to play in raising one's infant. My mother told me that she had wanted to breast-feed all of her children, but the mood of the day was that the newly-devised "formulas" were much better for infants. And when she shared with her parents and contemporaries her desire to breastfeed, they openly scoffed and jeered at her "close-mindedness" and refusal to join the "modern world."

So much of what we now see as current examples of our "ignorance" was in those days just the opposite: an effort to embrace the new and modern, and not to be left behind with our "old" fresh meat and silly garden vegetables when a new and modern and, therefore, better world awaited us if only we'd bravely venture forth unto it.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Jaymes]

Jaymes - I do not know what any of what you said has to do with learning to eat cassoulet, foie gras or any of the other foods that Julia Child taught us about? You can characterize the food we ate prior to her emergence any way you want.  But it won't detract from her place of importance...

What I said that "has to do with learning to eat...the other foods that Julia Child taught us about" is that she "demystified French cuisine" for us; that she translated the foreign words, simplified the techniques, informed us as to where to purchase the ingredients, what to subsitute if they were not available, etc.

Seems to me that all has EVERYTHING "to do with what [Julia] has to do with it." In other words, Steve, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU regarding her "place of importance." Totally, Steve.

And actually, I believe I've said that same thing regarding Julia Child three times now.

Wow. It turns out that it's just as difficult to agree with you as it is to disagree with you.

Which is damn difficult indeed.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[hollywood]

Wow.  It turns out that it's just as difficult to agree with you as it is to disagree with you.

Which is damn difficult indeed.

Steve will eventually take "yes" for an answer, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon...just not for the rest of your life.