I thought this was an interesting topic of one of the episodes of chef’s table (netflix docuseries). The chef focused on what real “american” cuisine looks like, and since cuisine typically comes out of hardship, American food doesn’t have as distinct of an identity since the USA has typically been a country of “plenty.” Was really a fascinating point, and it made me look at food culture in a very different way
Lol fair. Though I don’t mean to suggest that there is no hardship anywhere in the US (i think that’s why chicken wings became popular), but across the board, food has historically been more easily accessible in the US than most nations than pre existed it. Sure there are some regional delicacies, but no true US cuisine. I’m sure that could be partially explained by the geographic size as well, but there are some distinct differences in UK cuisine even though those cultures are significantly closer.
The US is too big to have a unified cuisine. The UK is hard to compare to because even their accents vary much more across a small geographic area, their cultural regions are strictly divided and enforced thanks to deeply entrenched classism and social pressure.
Also I just flat disagree that cuisines like Cajun/Creole or Tex Mex or Southwest/Santa Fe don’t qualify as true US cuisines.
I think they would identify as more as their own regional cuisine, as opposed to being a part of some larger US identity. I think this would be similar to understanding of french or italian cuisine, but then if you dig into specific regions you’ll get “tuscan” as opposed to prototypical “italian.” That nuance for “US cuisine” is not as well defined because it doesn’t exist in the same way, even though regional cuisines are totally distinct in their own way.
I used the UK as an example because they have distinct regional cuisines like Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Yorkshire, etc, even though it is geographically quite small. To me, that defies the logic that the US can’t have a more distinct food identity but then also coexist with various subcultures across a larger geographic area.
That sounds really interesting, you’ve made me curious about this topic now; I’m not a documentary kind of person, but I’m probably going to read about it later.
I typically don’t watch documentaries, and I watched the entire series. It’s pretty well done!
Each episode follows one world renowned chef and their personal history, their food journey, their take on food in general, and where they are now. The first episode was an Italian chef who tried to bring home cooking to restaurants in Italy and was met with backlash by the community (you can’t monetize Mom’s home cooking). The second one was about a highly regarded chef who moved to Argentina to cook for a remote village and that’s pretty much it (as far as i recall) because it was way less stressful cooking a whole pig underground than running a 3 Michelin star French restaurant.
I think it’s more that the US is a very recent country and was a melding of many cultures, plus the sheer size of the country and diversity of the ingredients found around the country.
Yeah that’s fair, but in some ways other young countries have their own distinctive cuisines that are popular, such as Mexico and Peru. Additionally, i don’t think the blend of other cultures is really the problem in having an identity. Other countries have plenty of immigrant populations, but they still have their own identity. For example, turkish doner is huge in Germany, but German cuisine is very much its own thing. Then you can even dial it in even further, looking at bavarian, franconian, swabian, etc.
I agree that any one of those points alone doesn’t make for a particularly distinct cuisine, but combining them leads to a lot of diverse sub customers. I think the size point is the biggest one though. It’s hard to compare us cuisine to a single country since the US is so big that different regions create their own sub cuisines. As far as the sub cuisines go, I do think there are distinct cuisines, like you have various bun based sandwiches like burgers, hotdogs, and subs, there’s also casseroles, roasts, and southern food is its own distinct cuisine.
Right, but that was the point of the episode of the documentary. At a basic level, American cuisine is based on plentiful food sources, and we get things like burgers and hotdogs. I recommend watching it, it was quite interesting. I’m not trying to suggest that this is the only explanation, but it was an interesting theory nonetheless.
Sure, some regions have some variety (as you mention, a casserole). Size is a factor, but similarly maybe countries have some form of culinary identity (russian, chinese, brazilian). They have sub cultures as well. I’m not well versed in them, to be honest, but i know they exist.
It was an interesting point that i found to be somewhat profound especially as i explored other cuisines, which are typically developed during hardship.
I thought this was an interesting topic of one of the episodes of chef’s table (netflix docuseries). The chef focused on what real “american” cuisine looks like, and since cuisine typically comes out of hardship, American food doesn’t have as distinct of an identity since the USA has typically been a country of “plenty.” Was really a fascinating point, and it made me look at food culture in a very different way
I dunno man, the Pretzel Bun wasn’t really popularized until after Millenials couldn’t afford houses
Lol fair. Though I don’t mean to suggest that there is no hardship anywhere in the US (i think that’s why chicken wings became popular), but across the board, food has historically been more easily accessible in the US than most nations than pre existed it. Sure there are some regional delicacies, but no true US cuisine. I’m sure that could be partially explained by the geographic size as well, but there are some distinct differences in UK cuisine even though those cultures are significantly closer.
The US is too big to have a unified cuisine. The UK is hard to compare to because even their accents vary much more across a small geographic area, their cultural regions are strictly divided and enforced thanks to deeply entrenched classism and social pressure.
Also I just flat disagree that cuisines like Cajun/Creole or Tex Mex or Southwest/Santa Fe don’t qualify as true US cuisines.
I think they would identify as more as their own regional cuisine, as opposed to being a part of some larger US identity. I think this would be similar to understanding of french or italian cuisine, but then if you dig into specific regions you’ll get “tuscan” as opposed to prototypical “italian.” That nuance for “US cuisine” is not as well defined because it doesn’t exist in the same way, even though regional cuisines are totally distinct in their own way.
I used the UK as an example because they have distinct regional cuisines like Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Yorkshire, etc, even though it is geographically quite small. To me, that defies the logic that the US can’t have a more distinct food identity but then also coexist with various subcultures across a larger geographic area.
That sounds really interesting, you’ve made me curious about this topic now; I’m not a documentary kind of person, but I’m probably going to read about it later.
I typically don’t watch documentaries, and I watched the entire series. It’s pretty well done!
Each episode follows one world renowned chef and their personal history, their food journey, their take on food in general, and where they are now. The first episode was an Italian chef who tried to bring home cooking to restaurants in Italy and was met with backlash by the community (you can’t monetize Mom’s home cooking). The second one was about a highly regarded chef who moved to Argentina to cook for a remote village and that’s pretty much it (as far as i recall) because it was way less stressful cooking a whole pig underground than running a 3 Michelin star French restaurant.
Fascinating stuff.
A lot of south Louisiana food is a reflection of this.
I think it’s more that the US is a very recent country and was a melding of many cultures, plus the sheer size of the country and diversity of the ingredients found around the country.
Yeah that’s fair, but in some ways other young countries have their own distinctive cuisines that are popular, such as Mexico and Peru. Additionally, i don’t think the blend of other cultures is really the problem in having an identity. Other countries have plenty of immigrant populations, but they still have their own identity. For example, turkish doner is huge in Germany, but German cuisine is very much its own thing. Then you can even dial it in even further, looking at bavarian, franconian, swabian, etc.
I agree that any one of those points alone doesn’t make for a particularly distinct cuisine, but combining them leads to a lot of diverse sub customers. I think the size point is the biggest one though. It’s hard to compare us cuisine to a single country since the US is so big that different regions create their own sub cuisines. As far as the sub cuisines go, I do think there are distinct cuisines, like you have various bun based sandwiches like burgers, hotdogs, and subs, there’s also casseroles, roasts, and southern food is its own distinct cuisine.
Right, but that was the point of the episode of the documentary. At a basic level, American cuisine is based on plentiful food sources, and we get things like burgers and hotdogs. I recommend watching it, it was quite interesting. I’m not trying to suggest that this is the only explanation, but it was an interesting theory nonetheless.
Sure, some regions have some variety (as you mention, a casserole). Size is a factor, but similarly maybe countries have some form of culinary identity (russian, chinese, brazilian). They have sub cultures as well. I’m not well versed in them, to be honest, but i know they exist.
It was an interesting point that i found to be somewhat profound especially as i explored other cuisines, which are typically developed during hardship.
Watch “High on the Hog.”