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,
>

You must have lived in a different part of the UK than I did LOL. Other
than the fast food things, most British people don't eat anything like
Americans do. They like their Britsh foods as well as anything
'foreign'. Having a food history *includes* eating other people's foods,
such as tea and coffee, chocolate, tomatoes etc.