Julia Child's Kitchen

[Steve Plotnicki]

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.

Just for the record, in case anyone didn't know, these are all examples of isolationism. The rest of the word already had a way to handle these things that was perfectly fine. And American corporations were able to change that and get people to switch to mass-marketed "modern" (really meaning artificial) things. You know why? Because the American people were trying to shed their cultural connection to their countries of origin and they were willing to accept frozen meat or formula as "modern" instead of eating fresh meat and breast feeding. And it is fair to say that some things they were right about. But some things. specifically in the area of food, they were 100% wrong about. To this day Americans are refrigerator crazy. You ever go into a food shop in Europe? The milk is stacked next to the register unrefrigerated.

So are we ready to agree with the curator at the Smithsonian yet or are there still non-believers. Because correct me of I'm wrong, we went down this road because a number of people contested the curators comments about isolationism.

[Jaymes]

Golly, here I am again, interacting with you, Steve. We're behaving almost like an old married couple today... Now, isn't that a frightening thought..

Can't speak for anyone else, but I do agree with you (and the curator) that in those days in many ways the U.S. was "isolationist."

But you have a negative and condescending tone to your reasons and explanations as to why that was. And it is THOSE with which I heartily disagree.

Edited January 6, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[hollywood]

But you have a negative and condescending tone to your reasons and explanations as to why that was.  And it is THOSE with which I heartily disagree.

It's hard for Steve to avoid this when he's apologizing for the rest of us.

[Jaymes]

But you have a negative and condescending tone to your reasons and explanations as to why that was.  And it is THOSE with which I heartily disagree.

It's hard for Steve to avoid this when he's apologizing for the rest of us.

Actually, from my experience, it's ALWAYS "hard for Steve to avoid this."

[Steve Plotnicki]

You mean that I think that most American food customs of that era are plainly ridiculous, including most of the ones that are still in existance today, is negative and condescending? Even if I am right and it is true? You have lost me there.

[hollywood]

You mean that I think that most American food customs of that era are plainly ridiculous, including most of the ones that are still in existance today, is negative and condescending? Even if I am right and it is true? You have lost me there.

Steve,

Remember this line from the Beatles?

And it really doesn’t matter if I’m wrong

I’m right

Where I belong I’m right

Where I belong.

See the people standing there who

Disagree and never win

And wonder why they don’t get in my door.

Steve, relax. You belong.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hollywood - Was that supposed to add something to this discussion?

[hollywood]

Hollywood - Was that supposed to add something to this discussion?

A little joie de vivre.

[Jaymes]

You mean that I think that most American food customs of that era are plainly ridiculous, including most of the ones that are still in existance today, is negative and condescending? Even if I am right and it is true? You have lost me there.

No, Steve. Please read your post again and pay attention.

What I said was that in my opinion, your tone regarding the REASONS WHY THOSE FOOD CUSTOMS EXISTED are "negative and condescending."

For example, let's say for the sake of making this point that we all agree that a thing (anything) EXISTS, okay? Well, that is only ONE ASPECT of the argument.

Then, we get to the REASONS WHY it exists.

And, in this case, it is not the FACT OF EXISTANCE; but rather, the REASONS FOR THE FACT OF EXISTANCE, where I believe your tone is negative and condescending. And, where I disagree with you.

(Oh man is this tedious.)

Okay - Let's say that we are discussing something ridiculous. Let's say that we all agree it is ridiculous. In my case, because the following actually happened to me, I'll use it as an example:

Way up high in the rice terraces in a third-world country, I was traveling on a bus. The bus had no sides, just benches that went all across. On this bus, in addition to me, were various members of the local populace, as well as their animals - goats, chickens, pigs, etc. Many of the local women wore no shirts, but rather, just lengths of cloth wrapped around their waists as skirts. In their ears they hung heavy golden loops that had stretched their lobes down to their shoulders. Many of the men were in loin cloths, although some also had on shirts. Many had had various tatoos on their faces and other parts of their bodies and, when they smiled, they revealed teeth that had been filed to sharp points.

This bus threaded its way along a very narrow dirt and gravel road that wound up along the sides of mountains. To the left of us was high jungle forest, and to the right, the "road" dropped sharply.

Suddenly, the bus stopped and every single person on it except for my companion and I got off.

Ahead of us the road narrowed frighteningly, and you could clearly see where there had been a landslide, and the rocks and gravel had plumeted down the mountainside. It did not appear to my companion and me that the resulting space was wide enough for the bus.

Chattering excitedly, all of the passengers began gathering small bits of brush and twigs and arranging them into small piles on the road directly in front of the bus. My companion and I asked what was going on. We were told that the previous week a bus like ours had gone off of the road in that exact same spot and many people had been killed. So now, the passengers were lighting fires in order to scare away the evil spirits so that the bus could safely pass.

All the fires were lighted, and there were ceremonial words spoken and much waving about of arms, etc. Then, they stomped out the fires (most with bare feet) and every single one of them got back on the bus, smiling and laughing and confident.

My friend and I looked at each other and said, "We think we'll just walk across, if you don't mind, and you can stop and pick us up on the other side, if that's okay."

The bus driver pointed out to us how foolish we were being because, "it's okay now - the evil spirits are all gone and we'll be able to cross the narrow spot just fine."

We said that well, yes, we knew that, and we could see that and we were sure he was correct, but if it was all the same to him, stupid us would just walk over anyway.

So, we did. We walked over, easily of course, and stood there watching wide-eyed with apprehension as the bus drove gingerly across, wheels extending a bit over the edge of the road, sending rocks and gravel tumbling down the mountain.

Upon returning down that same road about a week later, we repeated the process - they got out - lighted fires - got back on and RODE over - again we walked and they stopped and picked us up.

Now, here's the part that pertains to what you are saying: I believe (and think that most educated people would agree) that what they did was "ridiculous" as you put it. But, do you think I should look down at them? In fact, they were doing the best they could with what they knew to be valid and correct and true. AND, who am I to laugh? As they would be happy to point out, they made it across, didn't they?

So, Steve, in my view the reasons were many and varied for whatever American "isolationism" existed at that time. (One of them, frankly, is our sheer size.)

But, Steve, you can either take the most negative, condescending, unpleasant view as to THE REASONS WHY THAT EXISTED TO THE EXTENT IT DID.

Or, you can assume that most of us were doing the best we could with what we knew to be valid and correct and true at the time.

I believe that you choose to make the most negative and condescending value judgments possible regarding the REASONS WHY.

And this is it for me.

(I'm repeating to myself: New Year's Resolution - Do not argue with Plotnicki, do not argue with Plotnicki, do not argue with Plotnicki.)

Edited January 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[hollywood]

Okay - Let's say that we are discussing something ridiculous.  Let's say that we all agree it is ridiculous.  In my case, because the following actually happened to me, I'll use it as an example:

Great story. Glad you made it back.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But, do you think I should look down at them?

Yes for the decision they made, not as people which is a different thing.

In fact, they were doing the best they could with what they knew to be valid and correct and true.

Stupid is stupid.

AND, who am I to laugh? As they would be happy to point out, they made it across, didn't they?

Not because the evils spirits were gone. Laughing is optional.

I think you are confusing two things. I think you are confusing somebody saying that a concept is dumb with saying a person is dumb because they don't know any better. Because yes, you can easily describe your natives as dumb. And you can describe their actions as dumb. Those dumbs are different dumbs then the dumb which means an inability to learn. I also think that what you are promoting is the equivelent of lowering the level of the conversation so it can take place where the least knowledgable contributor can actively participate. I personally don't happen to agree with that. You hear that argument quite often on Internet chat rooms from people who have a hard time keeping up with the conversation. And I am not directing that to you personally. The most typical one you hear is you shouldn't tell people they are wrong (Strellabella and I can discuss this because we are haiving dinner in 45 minutes.) But at the level that many of us would like to discuss things, telling people they are wrong or they are being dumb about it is part and parcel of the discourse, no negativity or condescension attached.

Just look at this thread. The conflict here was that people thought the curator at the Smothsonian was wrong about their assertion. That is ludicrous to begin with. But then when someone said something silly, like Chicken ala King or Shrimp Diablo wasn't an example of American isolationism and I told them they were wrong, I had a negative attidtude and I was condescending. How about the people who said the curator was wrong, were they negative and condescending? Do you think they really know as much about the topic as the curator does?

It's all a matter of inferences. If you wanted to hear what I said in the context it was spoken, which was topical and not personal, that is how you would respond and there were many people on this thread who responded that way. But you want to read what I said as being personal. There must be a reason that you are doing that which is unique to you because what I said in this thread is tame stuff compared to some of the other stuff I post which nobody calls negative and condescending.

[Jaymes]

But you want to read what I said as being personal.

There must be a reason that you are doing that which is unique to you because what I said in this thread is tame stuff compared to some of the other stuff I post which nobody calls negative and condescending.

You are wrong on this one point for sure.

Although of course I know that the U.S. was isolationist from a commercial, business, and political standpoint back in that era (much of which continues today), your conclusions as to how that may or may not have impacted upon what Americans ate, and their attitude toward foreign cuisine, seem to me to be negative and condescending toward the citizens of the U.S. during that era. But I do not believe that you were being negative and condescending to me personally.

Frankly, if anything, it was the other way around (for which I should probably apologize to you, and so I do).

But as for your comments, I did not "take it personal." Not at all.

And as for the rest of your argument, there are many, many things I do not know. I do not know if you are smarter than everyone else here. I do not know if you are richer than everyone else here. But I DO know that you appear to have more time on your hands than everyone else here. And that you never give up. And that arguing with you is futile. And so I'm done for 2003.

And I also know that I greatly envy you your evening with Stellabella. Greatly envy you.

Tell her I said "Hola."

Edited January 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Condescending to Americans of that era, who the hell is that? The people who ate iceberg lettuce, Rice-a-Roni, frozen meat and Pop-Tarts? And who mixed water and powder to make Tang instead of buying fresh orange juice? Is it those people I was being negative about?

[IrishCream]

Quote Jaymes:  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 am with you, Jaymes. My mother was cooking "exotic" stuff in the 50s and early 60s. Eggplant...zucchini...chili...tacos...great spaghetti and meatballs...and homemade pizza (on English muffins...oh well). But I also have to agree with Steve P. For me, Julia Child's books taught me how to cook in a way that my mother never knew.

Edit: I am a jerk and didn't see the last page of the argument...I wish I could just delete my comments now.

Edited January 7, 2003 by IrishCream (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Irish Cream - Hardshell tacos I bet. I think tacos are one of the great examples of America being completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Up until there was heavy Mexican immigration into NYC, (over the last 10 years?,) nobody had seen soft corn tortillas and we were only familiar with the hardshell kind. What was that about?

[Jaymes]

Condescending to Americans of that era, who the hell is that? The people who ate iceberg lettuce, Rice-a-Roni, frozen meat and Pop-Tarts? And who mixed water and powder to make Tang instead of buying fresh orange juice? Is it those people I was being negative about?

[srhcb]

RE: Mr Plotnicki

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, may I also add, that putting research before conclusions may not be satifying, (in that you can't automaticly make yourself right all the time), but it is the more time honored method of carrying on intelligent discussion.

Feel free to be wrong. The rest of us do it quite often.

SB (outa here)

[hollywood]

Irish Cream - Hardshell tacos I bet. I think tacos are one of the great examples of America being completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Up until there was heavy Mexican immigration into NYC, (over the last 10 years?,) nobody had seen soft corn tortillas and we were  only familiar with the hardshell kind. What was that about?

Steve,

There are actually pretty good hard shell tacos available. But you want the kind where the tortilla is fried on the spot, not the premade hard shell. I think most Americans got hard shell tacos first, then later the rolled variety. But soft tortillas were always available. We just didn't put 2 and 2 together at first.

[Jaymes]

Irish Cream - Hardshell tacos I bet. I think tacos are one of the great examples of America being completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Up until there was heavy Mexican immigration into NYC, (over the last 10 years?,) nobody had seen soft corn tortillas and we were  only familiar with the hardshell kind. What was that about?

I can't believe I'm here doing this again.

I need to start a new support group: "AWPA" - "Arguing With Plotnicki Anonymous" -- when you feel the compulsion to argue with Steve, you PM another member and they talk you out of it.

Steve - those people you disparage as being "culinary isolationists," i.e. intentionally unaware, intentionally ignorant, during that era would not, if you were correct, even have been interested in or attempted tacos, hard-shell or otherwise, if they had not been open to and curious about the food of other cultures.

So they tried hard-shell tacos. So hard-shell tacos are not "authentic" enough for you. Do you not see that very few people living in, say, New York during the 50's, had the time or resources to fly to Mexico to learn how to prepare the real thing?

The curator of whom you speak is certainly correct in saying that the U.S. pursued an isolationist policy - commercially and politically. That's not news. That's a well-accepted, acknowledged statement of fact.

The curator is undoubtedly also correct when he says that in his opinion Julia Child may have had an effect on that policy beyond the scope of food.

But then YOU, not the curator, take it one step further: you say that most Americans of that era were intentionally not open to the ideas of cuisines other than plain, old, bland, comfortable "American." That, in fact, they were frightened of it, and disparaged it, along with the thought of anything unfamiliar or foreign and new.

Well, I was there during that era. I was, first, semi-grown up and, then, completely grown up. I was cooking and eating. I was in the homes and kitchens and dining rooms of many, many other Americans of that era. I saw and smelled and ate what they put on their tables. I heard them discuss what they were preparing and what they were interested in preparing and what they were trying to learn how to prepare. And the simple fact of the matter is that, on that last point, you are wrong.

When the idea of tacos came along, they did NOT say, "Eeew, Mexican, nasty, dirty, less than me. I'm not interested in that. I'd never put that ethnic crap on my table."

No, Steve. They said, "Tacos? What are they? Mexican, you say? How do you make them? Are they good? They sound good. I think I'll try to fix some."

They most certainly were (for the most part, anyway) interested and curious and open to new ideas and experimentation and dabbling in the cuisines of foreign cultures, other peoples, faraway lands.

Of course there were some folks who were not, but I was there and I am telling you that by and large, the vast majority of Americans during that time, at least the ones who were in the kitchens turning out meals day after day most certainly, without any doubt whatsoever, DID want to try such things that were, at the time, exotic to their experience.

Like Swiss fondue and hard-shell tacos.

Edited January 7, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[g.johnson]

Just to be perverse I'll question the premise from the other end. Is there any evidence that most Americans are not still culinarily isolationist? How many half way decent French (or Italian or Chinese or Mexican) restaurants are there throughout the country? More than 50 years ago, no doubt, but I'd guess that only a small fraction of the population go to them. Similarly, what are the sales of Mastering the Art relative to Joy of Cooking?

You're still peasants.

[hollywood]

You're still peasants. 

But when we get on the plane, we're tourists.

[Sandra Levine]

Irish Cream - Hardshell tacos I bet. I think tacos are one of the great examples of America being completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Up until there was heavy Mexican immigration into NYC, (over the last 10 years?,) nobody had seen soft corn tortillas and we were  only familiar with the hardshell kind. What was that about?

I remember a Mexican restaurant in the late 50s - early 60s (something like, Xochitl) that had as part of its kitchen staff Mexican women who hand-patted corn tortillas.

[Jaymes]

Similarly, what are the sales of Mastering the Art relative to Joy of Cooking?

You are probably correct when you compare the sales of that one book (Mastering the Art) with Joy of Cooking.

But since Steve's point is that by and large the American populace is not interested in the exploration of any foreign cuisine, I'd wager that the combined U.S. sales of ALL cookbooks regarding foreign cuisines are higher than Joy of Cooking.

[IrishCream]

Irish Cream - Hardshell tacos I bet. I think tacos are one of the great examples of America being completely out of touch with the rest of the world. Up until there was heavy Mexican immigration into NYC, (over the last 10 years?,) nobody had seen soft corn tortillas and we were  only familiar with the hardshell kind. What was that about?

In my mother's defense, she fried fresh corn tortillas. So yes they were hard shell, but not from the little boxes. I'd also like to comment that I grew up in San Diego. Later when I lived in New Haven and NYC (late 70s-early 80s), there was not a decent Mexican restaurant to be found. Nor could I purchase fresh corn tortillas at the grocery store. I had to buy a tortilla press and make my own.

[Steve Plotnicki]

No Jaymes that isn't my point at all. You just want to keep making that my point.

People in America ate hardshell tacos (and invented Taco Bell) because they weren't aware Mexicans ate two soft corn tortillas that were folded around various fillings. And the reason they weren't aware is that they weren't interested in the lives that Mexicans led. They might have been interested in Mexicans and Mexico as some type of exotica, but that was symbolized by making a phony Mexican product, not an authentic one.

They were interested in reinventing everything as an American item when it didn't need reinventing. And the curators point is that Julia Child brought authentic French cuisine into our households and that was one of the things that helped end American isolationism. Got it now?

American reinvented food product = isolationism

Authentic foreign food product = end of isolationism

And when you say that Julia Childs helped introduce Americans to authentic French food, by your own definition, the food they ate beforehand was not authentic, hence, isolationist.

As to my own opinion about what people ate, they ate dreck then and they eat dreck now. And I'm sure that there was no bigger pile of isolationist dreck then what they served at your Caribbean Night. Unless you were serving Curried Goat, Pigeon Peas, Callalloo and Ackee.

Irish Cream - Well if you grew up in San Diego you had a better chance of knowing what a good tortilla was then the rest of us dig.

Of course what I am saying doesn't hold for everyone. Certain people understood food on an international level and lived their lives accordingly. But 99% of the people ate dreck. And they still do.