In article >, this one
> wrote:

> Given that until a bit more than a century ago, all cuisine was
> regional, and small regions at that, it seems, in view of the changes
> we've all seen, that the definitions are now simultaneously subject to
> both micro and macro views. The Chinese all use soy sauce, but they
> eat wheat in the north and rice in the south. The macro view defines
> it against soy products, the micro by the preferred grain.

This hits the nail on the head.

One can make different maps of, say Europe (I pick it cos it's very
variegated, linguistically and food-wise). You can make fat maps, with
olive oil, lard, butter, nut-oil, beef dripping, goose fat etc all
overlapping in odd ways. The fact that you use butter doesn't mean that
you don't use some of the others.

.. You can make grain maps, and spice maps, and so on. And I would
suggest you could make a rough 'national cuisine' map, where the
borders would roughly correspond with national boundaries, with
definitions like the order of courses, the way you drink coffee, etc,
etc. But all the maps have not only different criteria, but different
*kinds* of criteria.

I don't think there's a simple answer to this, and I think that the
question, 'is there a national cuisine?' anywhere at all is just a sort
of a meaningless question.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address