On Thu, 01 May 2008 17:38:40 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 13:10:29 -0700, William George Ferguson
><wmgfrgsn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>>The culinary sophistication that gave rise to the differentiation into
>>>national cuisines doesn't begin to gain traction until the 1600's.
>>
>>Or to put it another way, national cuisines had to wait until there were
>>nations (Spain, as a nation, dates from 1492, Germany, as a nation,
dates
>>from 1871 (almost a hundred years younger than the U.S.). Italy, as a
>>unified nation, also dates from the Franco-Prussian war in the 1870s.
>>France, as a discrete nation, is probably the oldest of the European
>>nations, dating from around 987, when it broke from the Carolingian
empire.
>
>On the other hand, what Westerners call Indian food makes about as
>much sense as European food. Just because something is a nation
>doesn't mean it has a unified cuisine.
Gosh, are you saying that Muslims, Hindus, ans Sikhs don't all eat the
same
things?
In Lauri King's Mary Russell story "The Game", an Indian Raj hosts a meal
which he has deliberately designed to offend every one of his guests,
Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, and Christian (Mary is in disguise, but he manages by
happenstance to offend her sensibilities as a Jew with the anti-Muslim
dishes).
--
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
(Bene Gesserit)
|
