British Restaurants Outside of Britain

[Wilfrid]

This has turned out to be a very interesting thread, because it raises questions about how and why 'cuisines' travel beyond the lugubrious observations about British cuisine in which it originated.

Steven Shaw made the point which, while obvious, eluded me yesterday until about five minutes after I logged off: immigration.  If the British had emigrated to the States in the numbers which other ethnic groups have - Italians, European Jews, Mexicans - there would be a barrowload of British restaurants here.  Take Ireland as an example:  you can scarcely walk two blocks in Manhattan without being offered a version of Irish cuisine - which, lets be honest, does not always scintillate.*  The British - the English and Welsh in particular - haven't emigrated anywhere in mass numbers.  Australia and Canada are the obvious exceptions.  I think Australia is a special case, rather than an experimental demonstration, because the original waves of immigrants came very specifically from impoverished sectors of British society.  What they took with them was not, in my opinion, the best of British food, but it survived nonetheless.  Mr Balic and I indulged in a learned discussion of the specific type of meat pie which ended up in Australia elsewhere on the Board.

Canada?  Take a look around British Columbia, and you will find food from the old country prominently on offer.

I will take Steve KLC's point that French home cooking has travelled in a way that British hasn't.   My point was poorly thought out (see, it's not difficult).

I don't believe the fact that modern British chefs incorporate French or Italian ingredients and techniques make them non-British (if that's what was being argued).  Look around the gallery of modern American chefs, from Charlie Trotter to Emeril Lugasse to David Bouley.  Not exactly cooking purist American food, are they?  Modern British cuisine just is that global, inclusive kind of cuisine which one finds in many different countries now.  

Steve Plotnicki:  you have some strange medical condition which causes fish and chip blindness .  Manhattan is thronging with fish and chip shops - usually Asian-run in my observation (vague, I know - sorry).  I can direct you to some if you would like.  But thanks for the Liebling info - I haven't perused that collection, and it should definitely be on my to-do list.

*I am not saying all Irish cuisine is bad.

[Fat Guy]

I think it's not any one thing. Immigration is certainly a factor, especially in determining what the average person eats. Immigration is pretty much unrelated to what goes on in haute cuisine, which is totally French-dominated in the Western world. This all makes sense on an intuitive level, at least to me it does.

I think immigration is important, and I also think the inherent quality of food is important. French food is better than British food at every level -- I hope I've been clear enough that I agree with Plotnicki entirely on this essential point, and I think all the Brits on these boards need to get over their visceral reactions to this basic truth. The British have done other stuff better than the French, but the French rule in the gastronomic arena. That's why there are more French restaurants in New York City than there are French people: Because wherever there is a sophisticated audience for Western cuisine there are French restaurants.

There are also economic factors, of course. Most of the Brits I see in New York are well-to-do or at least middle class. These aren't the people that open the kinds of restaurants that people use for nourishment. They also speak English, and I think I explained before that this helps them to integrate here and makes them more likely to assimilate than to preserve their traditions. Plus standard American fare is so overwhelmingly British in derivation that it feels comfortable to Brits so they don't typically see a need to recreate their hometown cuisines. The Irish speak English too, but traditionally they were hated -- so they developed their own restaurant culture (I'm talking about bar food here).

But ultimately I see this thread as an interesting diversion that does nothing whatsoever to strengthen or weaken Plotnicki's point made on the other thread. If we want to talk about whether or not English food is good, we should talk about the food itself. To say everybody in the world hates it says nothing. Were that the standard, the world's best restaurants would be McDonald's and KFC.

[A Balic]

There actually used to be an Australian restaurant here in Ottawa. Must have been six years ago or more. Certainly not an establishment for fine dining. Meat pies on the menu, of course. Fish and chips. Burgers and fries. Some lamb dishes. The building that they (and several other restaurants) were in was sold out from underneath them and they shut down, as far as I know.

They shut down? Good, I hate those so-called Australian theme places. I had not seen any until moving to Edinburgh, they have several here and they are complete shite, bearing no relationship to anything that I have ever seen in Australia with the possible exception of those "Ye Olde English/Irish" chain pubs.

Anyway, it was proberly staffed by Canadians and they would have sustituted moose for kangaroo in the burgers, eh?

[Jinmyo]

Sorry, Adam. I never actually ate there. But I did have a conversation with someone I remember as the owner. Or at least the front guy. Some d@mn bloody Aussie. No kangaroo meat but I think a burger was named something like "cheeseburgeroo". Lots of "g'day mate"-ery.

Moose. Have you ever had it? The darkest, gamiest stuff I've encountered.

[Wilfrid]

French food is better than British food at every level -- I hope I've been clear enough that I agree with Plotnicki entirely on this essential point... The British have done other stuff better than the French, but the French rule in the gastronomic arena.

Lest there be a very profound misunderstanding, can I just say that I agree with every word I have just quoted from Steven Shaw (with only the reservation that there may be a few specific culinary things the British do better than French).

Without combing back over millions of words to quote my earlier posts, I believe I have said a few times that I think French food is obviously much better than British.  At home, I cook twenty French or French-derived dishes to every English one.  I love French food.

The slugfest with Mr P. has had three focusses from my point of view:

1.  The preposterous historical reductionism by which he attempts to explain French superiority.

2.  The dogmatic assertion that all British culinary endeavour (except I think some of our cheese) goes in the shit drawer, together with the assertion that absolutely everyone outside Britain takes the same view.

3.  His opinion that British food started improving around 1994/1995, which I believe he has withdrawn (although quietly so as you wouldn't notice).

[A Balic]

I had never said "G'day mate" until moving to the UK, then I was forced to say it so that ignorant British types didn't mistake me for a South African or (God preserve) a New Zealander!

I haven't had Moose, but I have had some Elk (Moose that lives in Europe) sausage. Yeh, they were kind of black coloured.

[Jinmyo]

French food is better than British food at every level -- I hope I've been clear enough that I agree with Plotnicki entirely on this essential point... The British have done other stuff better than the French, but the French rule in the gastronomic arena.

Lest there be a very profound misunderstanding, can I just say that I agree with every word I have just quoted from Steven Shaw (with only the reservation that there may be a few specific culinary things the British do better than French).

Wifrid, I think that everyone agrees about this.

[AdamLawrence]

Adam B said:

"I had never said "G'day mate" until moving to the UK, then I was forced to say it so that ignorant British types didn't mistake me for a South African or (God preserve) a New Zealander!"

S'alright Adam, you'd have been spotted as soon as you started opining on fish and chips, or 'fush and chups', as you'd have said had you been a Kiwi.

Actually I had the best fish and chips of my life in New Zealand. Blue cod and chips, chosen from what was effectively a wet fish counter, fried to order and eaten overlooking the seal colony a few miles north of Kaikoura. I was on honeymoon too.

Yes, the ambience may possibly have coloured the memory ;-)

Adam

[Wilfrid]

Wifrid, I think that everyone agrees about this.

I thought so, although I wasn't absolutely sure about Michael Lewis.  Who is?

Anyway, "preposterous historical reductionism" really rolls off the tongue.  Try it.  I am going to attempt to introduce into conversation as often as possible today.  Actually, it's best in a plummy British voice.

[A Balic]

Actually I had the best fish and chips of my life in New Zealand. Blue cod and chips, chosen from what was effectively a wet fish counter, fried to order and eaten overlooking the seal colony a few miles north of Kaikoura. I was on honeymoon too.

Yes, the ambience may possibly have coloured the memory ;-)

Adam

Struth mate, that's 'xactly the kind of Fish 'n' Chips I'm thinkin' 'bout. Blue cod (Blue eyed cod, Blue eye?) is a great fish, nice big juicy flakes of fish. I bet that was all you culd think about during your holiday, that and seals.

[AdamLawrence]

Adam B wrote:

"Struth mate, that's 'xactly the kind of Fish 'n' Chips I'm thinkin' 'bout. Blue cod (Blue eyed cod, Blue eye?) is a great fish, nice big juicy flakes of fish. I bet that was all you culd think about during your holiday, that and seals."

Well, there was a whale or two as well. And some rain. Oddly I think the best food of the trip was some venison (they have an odd name for it in NZ that I've forgotten) in a vaguely Spanish influenced place in Queenstown.

Adam

[Steve Plotnicki]

I am quite pissed. I wrote a long response addressing the various issues that have been raised and then the system crashed and it was all lost. But since I think the topic is veering off course, let me try and get in back on track.

Having read through the various responses, I will concede that things like Fish & Chips and Scones have become part of a worldwide food culture. And there are other food products that originate in the British Isles worth mentioning too. How about oatmeal or the American breakfast sausage? I'm sure if we think hard, we can make a longer list. But offering them really proves nothing and doesn't really speak to my point. I mean the hot dog is pervasive in U.S. food culture yet it would difficult for me to say that Americans like German cuisine as a result of it. In fact, Americans in general do not have much use for German cuisine. There are very few German restaurants they frequent, and updated versions of famous German dishes like Jaegerschnitzel and Sauerbratten are just not appearing on menus. So let's differentiate between food on the pizza place level and real cuisine. Because when I say that Italian food is pervasive in the U.S., it isn't based on the fact that we have a pizzeria on every block. It's based on the fact that we have proper Italian restaurants from nearly every region of Italy. So that should make my question even easier to answer. Forget about naming restaurants, just name some chefs that include famous British dishes on their menus. Show me where I can get something like haggis in any context.

Tony-After reading your post, I flipped through my Gault Millau Europe 2000 guide and I can tell you that every city in Spain and Italy and Germany are loaded with ethnic restaurants of every type. Every single one of them had a Chinese restaurant and I even saw some Cambodian, Korean, Morrocan restaurants. And they all had both French and Italian respectively. One even had a Swiss restaurant. But none had one that was British.

I am quite surprised that people are so defensive about this. So the food doesn't stand up to a comparison with food from other countries. What's the big deal? I mean I eat lots of things which I think taste good but when held up to the light are inferior to things that come from other countries. New England Clam Chowder is something that can be great. But it isn't anywhere as complex or nearly as sophisticated an expression of a soupy fish dish as a Soupe de Possons, Bouillabaisse, Cacciucco, Zarzuela, Waterzooi, etc. And that is why they don't have restaurants in Europe that serve it there. It isn't a unique enough expression of fish in broth to warrant its export, nor does it apply any technique that people would find interesting. And there isn't any demand for haggis or game pies anywhere else for the same reason. But in NYC, you can find every kind of soupy fish dish imagineable. In fact, it has become easier to get a soupe de possons here than it is a bowl of home made clam chowder. I know that sounds silly but I bet it is true.

To be debating where things like Haggis and Game Pie fit into the scheme of things, doesn't seem like it would create much of an argument. I mean they are hardly served in England let

alone surviving the burden of can you get a delicious version, no make that any version, in places like Lisbon or New York.

One would think that piece of information is telling. But like anything else, those who like haggis will offer an excuse, and those who don't will gladly shout out an "I told you so." But one would think that any fair and reasonable person who was at all trying to be objective would reach a conclusion that voted "nay" based on the evidence that has been put forth.

Unless someone can show me that Mrs. Lovett wasn't the most relevent Game Pie baker of this century.

Wilfrid-You are a knucklehead. I haven't said anywhere that British food started improving around 1994/5. I have said that it was around that time that ENOUGH  "good food" establishments opened in London so one could say that the food had improved overall. Simon's question was when did the food stop being "crappy?" I say when London HAD ENOUGH PLACES TO SAY IT HAD CHANGED. That's when it stopped.The question wasn't when did it start getting better? Understand yet?

[Fat Guy]

Steve, magnificent posts such as yours deserve to be composed in a word processor. It's a precaution worth taking on any message board site and only adds a couple of seconds to the posting process. Incidentally, our server logs indicate zero downtime this morning, so this one has to be blamed on your ISP, connection, browser, or something out of our control. Go get 'em, Plotnicki.

[Wilfrid]

Wilfrid-You are a knucklehead. I haven't said anywhere that British food started improving around 1994/5. I have said that it was around that time that ENOUGH  "good food" establishments opened in London so one could say that the food had improved overall.

Knucklehead, am I?

"I've been traveling to Britain since 1977 and the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around."  (S. Plotnicki, Collected Works, Volume XXI)

"I made a statement about the general level of quality [of British food] before 1995. In my opinion that is when there was a significant increase in quality across the board. And my opinion is based on the fact that I have owned a business in the U.K. since 1988."  (S. Plotnicki, Speeches and Sermons, V.15)

The expression "shooting fish in a barrel" springs to mind.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Willfrid-Did you not see where I said "ACROSS THE BOARD?"

Do you have middle of the sentence disease? Shall I call the Optometrist and have him prescribe you those special glasses that narrow your vision until you are certain to see the middle of the sentence? Or can we just agree that my very generalized statement to Simon's question is consistent with what I have been saying?  

You know your insistance on vetting every sylable I write in order to say that I haven't stated a proper or valid point is tiring. You might not agree with my point but I submit it is clearly stated. I think the food is bad there, and it has been bad for a very long time. I also think there is no reason that it had to be bad. And I point to the fact that it is better today. It could have been better than also. But on that point, I have been clear as to when I felt it had reached a certain threshold of improvement and that date I have said is around 1994/5. I do not know how I can be any clearer than this. And if I am wrong about 1994/5 and it is really 1992, the general point stays the same. It used to be bad and now it's better. How bad and how much better isn't all that relevent to the fact that it *was* bad. And if you don't really understand the import of what I have said, I can only conclude that it is because you don't want to deal with the substance of it.

Now you are going to have to excuse me because a lunch appointment at Peter Lugar's beckons.

[Wilfrid]

I believe Peter Luger has game pie as a daily special on Tuesdays

Seriously, Steve, I have to read you closely because you have a neat technique (whether conscious or not) of revising your claims to suit the evidence.  You have said two quite distinct things about the improvement on British food.  First, without qualification, that it started to improve in about 1995 (yes, a year or two either way, who cares?).  Second, that it was in 1994/95 that the improvement became "noticeable to me" - your words.  I have explained why these two claims are not the same.  You haven't addressed the fact that just about everyone who posted in response to your argument - mainly Brits - set a date much, much earlier than the one you chose.  I substantiated an earlier date - as far as London dining out was concerned - by providing a lengthy list of good enough restaurants and chefs, which were not only open, but very well known indeed, years before your proposed date.  You responded by gesturing to Coast.

Back to this thread:  It does raise some interesting questions which I am still mulling over.  I think everyone can agree that British "theme" restaurants are few and far between except in countries with a significant history of British immigration.  I have also suggested that typical dishes cooked by leading British chefs are to be found on the menus of American restaurants - not because Britain "exported" those dishes, but because there is increasingly a lingua franca of quality restaurant food which belongs to no particular nation.

Which leaves the question - do traditional British dishes show up anywhere, for example, in New York?  I think they do, but because they're not "exclusively" British, they aren't noticed as being such.  I have a handful of examples, but there are probably more:  braised oxtail, bacon and beans (on the Gramercy Tavern bar menu), calves liver and bacon, boiled beef (especially when served with carrots and/or horseradish), fishcakes (made with cod or other white fish - crabcakes are not particularly British).  These are all British staples, along with simply roast chicken, lamb and pork (whatever happened to roast beef?), the ubiquitous fish and chips, and even dishes like meatloaf.  By which I mean, the appearance of any of these in a British home or on the menu of an explicitly British restaurant, would be entirely natural.

Friend of a Farmer does a nice shepherd's pie, by the way, although I think there's some non-British tomato in the sauce.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Seriously, Steve, I have to read you closely because you have a neat technique (whether conscious or not) of revising your claims to suit the evidence.  You have said two quite distinct things about the improvement on British food.  First, without qualification, that it started to improve in about 1995 (yes, a year or two either way, who cares?)."

Wilfrid-That is a bunch of horseshit. You have posted the example of where you claim I said that and in order to make that point you had to cut and paste the words. But more importantly, whether I said '94 or '64 is irrelevent. I think it is much later than you do. In fact, I think it is an entire generation later than you do. So why do you keep quibbling with me over the exact year? Even if I ammended my response to say 1985, we would still be 1/2 a generation off. So your comment that you need to read me carefully is a load of hooey. That is because you have been quibbling with me over a few years when our difference is a matter of nearly 2 1/2 decades. At least keep your arguments consistant.

As fot the dishes you have raised, well I would think that those are more Italian/French in origin than British. But you could be right. But the key to whether a dish is British or French in nature comes down to, and I'm sorry to repeat myself but, how technique is applied to the dish. Is it chopped coarse or pureed to be smooth? Broths strained, or broths with little bits in it? What I'm getting to is that in almost every instance where Britain and France share a dish, the French have developed a cooking technique that produces a more refined version. And if we all were to examine those dishes, I think we will find that in almost every instance, the French version is the one that has become reknown the world over.

[Wilfrid]

1.  I am sure this is very tedious for everyone else, and perhaps for us too, but I suppose "horseshit" warrants a reply.  Here are the two paragraphs from which I quoted, in their entirety.  Everyone can see I cut and pasted nothing.  I inserted, in square brackets, the phrase [british food] to clarify what "it" was referring to.  Here they are:

First quote:  "You know it wasn't that the French were so benevolent and the Brits weren't. But the French realized that if they produced lots of good food, and made it affordable when comparing quality to price, there would be less pressure on them to redistribute the wealth of the upper classes. The Brits managed to skip that bit. I'm not quite sure how they got away with it. I know I keep pointing to spam etc. as the evidence, but it isn't only that. I've been traveling to Britain since 1977 and the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around. In fact, and I mentioned it in another thread, it took just one trip out of London recently for me to reexperience the poor quality I was used to for all those years. Now maybe growing up in England, what I find foul you find fair. But that is sort of like an Austrian telling me that the pervasive aroma of lard from it being used as cooking fuel in restaurants smells like roses. Well I assure you it doesn't. In fact it smells foul. But not to those who are acclimated to the smell."

Second quote:  "As for the availability of fresh ingredients as well as good ingredients before 1995, I am sure you are correct. But once again you are trying to make my allegations more specific than they were. I made a statement about the general level of quality before 1995. In my opinion that is when there was a significant increase in quality across the board. And my opinion is based on the fact that I have owned a business in the U.K. since 1988. And even prior to that I visited on a regular basis."

I propose we drop this subject.  I am not quibbling over the year.  If you can't make up your mind if it was when Coast opened, or six years earlier, or whenever, let's leave it alone.  I gave all my reasons for the earlier dating, as did a bunch of other contributors, and you're unable to respond.

2.  Look carefully at what I said.  I did not claim that any of those dishes originated in Britain.  It is an interesting and difficult archaeological exercise to trace the origins of any dish.  I said they were staples of British cooking, and the sorts of dishes you might find on the menu of any restaurant claiming to be British.  And non-British people enjoy decent versions of them.

3.  The French apply better techniques to such dishes and improve them?  As I believe Jinmyo said, I don't think anyone has at any point disagreed with that.  Some of us have taken exception to the claim that British cooking and food is, therefore, shit.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrid-For hopefully the last time, I have said in both of those paragraphs you have quoted that "general quality of food there stank until about 1995." If you can't figure it out, that is the same statement as "across the board" in the other quote you posted.

I just don't understand why you are so deperate to discredit my theory about it? You keep trying to twist my words until they mean something other than what I have said. And that is all in spite of the fact that regardless of how I have said it, whether I have been factualy accurate or not, possess a good knowledge of English history or not, or have made any other mistake that might be relevent to my point, all your arguing all your finagling all your kveching, prodding, poking and irksomeness, will not for a second change any of the facts that people are generally in agreement about. And I think I have offered up good evidence for that side of the argument. And I don't think you have really offered any for yours.

What you keep doing is to try to discredit my arguments by putting a magnifying glass to them in order to highlight every word and every concept. My god, Plotnicki is wrong, That's it, the food does taste good because he was wrong about the date it changed. Stop, enough already with picking on me. Those arguments won't make the food taste any better. Where are those powerful arguments to show the importance of English cuisine? Where is your cassoulet, your bouillabaisse, your foie gras? Or are your arguments limited to exposing Plotnicki as a poor thinker? Okay I'll admit it. I'm a poor thinker and I do an awful job of framing an issue. But guess what? The food still tastes whack.

To me none of this matters. If you like to eat game pie you have no issue with me. But if you want to go on believing that scraps of game cooked with suet in a pie crust made from white flour is fine eats, go right ahead. But please excuse me whilst I hold my nose when you eat it.

[Fat Guy]

Now that's the Plotnicki I know and love. What took you so long to get the argument right, you big goof? Outstanding use of "whack" by the way.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Plotinki noticed that restaurants serving British food are few outside the UK (he's right). He correlates this paucity with his own opinions on the cuisine. And bingo! The reason there are few British restaurants outside the UK is because British food is 'shit' (wrong and offensive).

Alarmingly, he seems to have quite a few dancing to his tune in a vain effort to disprove what is quite an obvious non-sequitur. The exhaustive listing of pie shops and chippies is not the point here. What matters is whether Plotinki can reason that the scarcity of expatriate restaurants is due to shittiness of the cuisine, and whether he can credibly discount other factors.

Plotinki's are feeble and genophobic claims and I'd really like to see him demonstrate their worth rather than just parrying good-intentioned, but ultimately, credibility-lending ripostes.

[Wilfrid]

Oh, now I understand.

I agree, enough with the poking around.

"I haven't said anywhere that British food started improving around 1994/5."

"the general quality of food their stank until about 1995 when it started turning around."

Both mean the same.  Fine.  Whatever.  And I'm a knucklehead, talking horseshit, and cutting and pasting your words.  I cite some examples of British dishes wish are widely enjoyed, and you tell me they're probably Italian.  I give up.

Let's start a thread about A.J. Liebling's excellent prose style and agree with each other about something.  

[Steve Plotnicki]

Shaw-Sometimes one takes the long way home. But as to "whack," hey I used to be in the rap music business (still am in a way) and I learned how to use the word from the people who coined the phrase.

LML-Gee I haven't made any claims here about the food being shit in this thread. This thread simplified it all by setting a lower hurdle for they "Yeas" to jump over by asking them to point to *any instance at all* where it is in favor. And I might add, so far nobody has pointed to a single instance where game pies or haggis are in favor. As for how far down the rung the quality of the food is, as far as I'm concerned it is in direct corrolation to the number of places serving it. But as I've said to Wilfrid, this thread is to document the fact that the cuisine lacks appeal, and not a search for the perfect adjective to describe it.

[Fat Guy]

Word.

[A Balic]

Plotnicki - just for you I dug out some quotes from a British cookbook published in 1833 (Before Escoffier and Careme had tarted up everything, especially the latter). In the French cooking section of the book:

"It will save much trouble to admit at once, that the French are the greatest cooking nation on earth. They, at least insist that it is so, and perhaps they may be right.....there is one cause of superiority so obvious that it musr be mentioned, -namely, the extreme patience and anxiety with which the most restless people in the world upon all other occasions, attend to the culinary processes. A French cook will give a half-day to the deliberate cookery of a ragout, which an English one would toss off in a half-hour."

And I really like this:

"The French have reduced the art of preparing forcemeat to fixed principles......and these they laboriously compound, with a degree of patience which goes far to redeem their national character from the charge of fickleness and levity." She then goes on to suggest that French pies (pates) should replace the British pies with all haste, so you may be related.

Cute, no?