Ranee Mueller wrote:

>In article >, Arri London >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Even the miserable rural district I had to live in for a while had
>>'ethnic' takeaways. While the natives of those countries (who ran the
>>places) wouldn't eat that Anglicised rubbish, it sold to the locals
>>quite readily.
>>
>>Nothing makes the US different in terms of the amount or variety of
>>'ethnic' food available.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, I think there is a difference. There is no real "American"
>cookery, for instance. There are American ingredients, and regional
>American foods, but Britain has a food history, yet they still eat other
>nations' foods. Since the US was made up of people from all over
>Europe, and then later Asia and other areas, our food is representative
>of that. I have always found it odd that British people ate more like
>Americans, since they had a whole body of cookery to work from, yet
>preferred other cultures' foods.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee
>
>Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.
>
>"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13
>
>http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
>http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/
>
>
You realise that you are leaving the door wide open for the usual jibes
about English cooking?

I think that there is an analogy to be made with the English language.
It is always developing and adapting, absorbing words from other
languages and inventing new ones as the need arises. The British
attitude to food is a bit the same and always has been. The "body of
cookery" that you refer to has been takng in foreign influences for
ever. There's a French influence in Scottish cookery that goes back to
the Auld Alliance, for example. Marmalade, essential for centuries to
the full English breakfast, came from Spain (or Portugal depending on
who you believe). It's not a case of preferring other people's food so
much as assimilating it.

Christine