> ha scritto nel messaggio
ups.com...
> Do Italians eat Chinese?
>
> They do if they're properly cooked.

I agree
Pandora

Definitely not enough. The world should eat many more chinese.

Jean-Pierre

Pandora schrieb:

> > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ups.com...
> > Do Italians eat Chinese?
> >
> > They do if they're properly cooked.
>
> I agree
> Pandora

Hmmm, is it the soy itself or the sodium you don't want in Asian foods?


One way to find Asian recipes without soy, (or much soy, or sodium
would be to go to one of the large recipe sites, then choose a
Low-Sodium Diet (I know at least some of them have that option, like
this one:
http://www.recipezaar.com/search)
Another tack to take would be to go to sites where low-sodium diets are
recommended, then search for Asian recipes.
Even if some of those recipes have a bit of soy sauce, you could always
substitute salt if you don't have a sodium problem, or sub with
something else if you do.

As for Mexican food, there's a load of it that has no beans... just not
the stuff you usually see in Mexican restaurants here.
I also don't like much chile heat myself, but that's why I like cooking
my own ethnic food ... I can lower the amount of heat, or eliminate it
entirely if I want.

(As for the huge pot of posole, I'm afraid I get tired of almost
*anything* I have to eat more than once in a two-day period, so I'll
always try to have leftovers after that period, or I'll freeze it.)


Diane B.

> ha scritto nel messaggio
oups.com...
> Hmmm, is it the soy itself or the sodium you don't want in Asian foods?
[CUT]
Personally I don't like rice, because is often overcooked.
Cheers
Pandora
from Italy

Pandora wrote:
> > ha scritto nel messaggio
> oups.com...
> > Hmmm, is it the soy itself or the sodium you don't want in Asian foods?
> [CUT]
> Personally I don't like rice, because is often overcooked.
> Cheers
> Pandora
> from Italy

Great logic. I don't like pasta because it is often softer than al
dente. -aem

wrote:
>
> Actually, I'd like to see this discussed for more cultures and
> groupings within cultures too
>
> In other words, which societies *don't* eat principally their own food?
>
> And how much does that just have to do with rural vs. city living, the
> culture itself, being a small country and not having rubbed up to many
> other cultures with fairly different foods, whether one is in one's own
> country or are travelling or have traveled a lot, age, poverty, and
> other factors.
>
> For example, the British have eaten a lot of Indian food in recent
> years, and I think also food from their other colonies, but are they
> open to other cuisines? And what about other countries? Does anything
> make the US different, especially when the whole country is considered
> not just the large urban areas?
>
> Diane B.

The 'British' do eat a lot of food from the Indian subcontinent. They
also eat food from most European countries, some American fast food,
just about every Asian cuisine, Middle Eastern food, South African food
etc etc.

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.

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.

One of the restaurants where I regularly at lunch or supper when working was
run by a Greek family. They had a chicken broaster and my co-worker loved
their broasted chicken, as well as their regular specials, like foot long hot
dogs, cheese burgers etc. One hot summer evening I went in there grab a quick
dinner and the family was sitting down to a dinner. They had a platter of
sliced tomatoes, cucumber, onions, feta cheese and olive. Damn. I wish that
had been on their menu.

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

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> One of the restaurants where I regularly at lunch or supper when working was
> run by a Greek family. They had a chicken broaster and my co-worker loved
> their broasted chicken, as well as their regular specials, like foot long hot
> dogs, cheese burgers etc. One hot summer evening I went in there grab a quick
> dinner and the family was sitting down to a dinner. They had a platter of
> sliced tomatoes, cucumber, onions, feta cheese and olive. Damn. I wish that
> had been on their menu.

All you need to do is ask. Have got all sorts of nice foods (often free
of charge) from the owners of restaurants when I asked.

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.