 |
|
| Historic (rec.food.historic) Discussing and discovering how food was made and prepared way back when--From ancient times down until (& possibly including or even going slightly beyond) the times when industrial revolution began to change our lives. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
History of Counterculture Food
I've ended up with the responsibility to write an article on the history of
counterculture food. As this is not my strength, I thought I'd ramble a bit and ask for your comments-- positive and negative. "Counterculture food" includes a wide group of individuals and groups opposed to corporate agriculture, corporate manufacturing of food, perceived government protection and subsidy of corporate food producers, and the globalization of food in general. Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster around the following overlapping issue areas: 1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm vs factory farm, etc.); 2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food, fast foods, obesity, etc.); 3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power of food companies, etc.); 4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion, humanitarian matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, etc.); 5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.); 6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.). What obvious issue areas have I left out? Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
> Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many > cluster around the following overlapping issue areas: > > 1. environmental and sustainability issues > 2. health and nutrition issues > 3. legal/political issues > 4. ethical/moral issues > 5. science/technology issues > 6. globalization issues > What obvious issue areas have I left out? Religious ones. The whole Western "alternative" lifestyle-politics movement, and its nutritional wing that started as "food reform", came out of the importation of Hindu ideas into Europe in the late 19th century, in Germany and Austria in particular. James Webb's "The Occult Establishment" will give you an idea of the cultural matrix, though it says relatively little about food per se. This stuff is still very much alive in certain subcultures, the Rudolf Steiner cult in particular ("biodynamic agriculture") and, over here, the Findhorn crowd (invoking Indian tutelary deities to boost the growth of your vegetables). The issues you list developed historically as secular rationales for practices that started out motivated by pure blind religious dogma. ========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <======== Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
"ASmith1946" > > What obvious issue areas have I left out? Union v. management? (you may have it in mind for one of your headings, but it isn't specifically mentioned.) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
Frogleg > nattered on
m: > On 05 Nov 2003 21:46:25 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote: > >>What obvious issue areas have I left out? > > Economics. Both cost of production and the final cost of food. Poor > people don't have the luxury of choosing free-range, organic, > no-additive, stone-ground, home-grown, socially-responsible and > environmentally-friendly foods. > Well, since poor people are inherently inferior, anyway, the socially aware and progressive can dismiss them as mere beasts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
>>> Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many >>> cluster around the following overlapping issue areas: [...] >>> What obvious issue areas have I left out? >> Religious ones. The whole Western "alternative" lifestyle-politics >> movement, and its nutritional wing that started as "food reform", >> came out of the importation of Hindu ideas into Europe in the late >> 19th century, in Germany and Austria in particular. > Sure, how about those Christians eating pork? I know Jews who like > Bacon so I bet there are Moslems who do to and maybe some of either > Abrahamic sect who actively promote it. There might even be Hindus > who like a good rare fillet steak. Andy was asking about a specific cultural phenomenon that took off in the twentieth century, not food taboo violations in general. My mum used to make bacon sandwiches for the kids next door since they came from a Seventh Day Adventist family and would never otherwise have tried them, but a counterculture figure she was not. The things this newsgroup makes you dream about. I came up with a recipe in my sleep: take one smallish Bible, lard it with rashers of bacon, wrap in puff pastry and bake in a hot oven. Pity I was too late to get that into the Futurist Cookbook. > I'd also like to add to the economic side. What about the spice > trades? What about Marco Polo? What about South America? Economics > may judge what the poor eat but the chance for merchants to make > cash by introducing foreign ingredients to a domestic market would > have influenced dramatic shifts in some cultures. For this particular shift, the soya business is the most relevant one (though they didn't get into the act until after WW2 and started in the US, whereas countercultural food started decades earlier in Europe). ========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <======== Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
<delurking>
just a though in passing... under the categories of legal/political/globalizaton issues or ethical/moral issues, I would think food rationing/distribution would develop as a sub-topic. Morgan S. "ASmith1946" > wrote in message ... > I've ended up with the responsibility to write an article on the history of > counterculture food. As this is not my strength, I thought I'd ramble a bit and > ask for your comments-- positive and negative. > > "Counterculture food" includes a wide group of individuals and groups opposed > to corporate agriculture, corporate manufacturing of food, perceived government > protection and subsidy of corporate food producers, and the globalization of > food in general. > > Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster > around the following overlapping issue areas: > > 1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm vs > factory farm, etc.); > > 2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food, fast > foods, obesity, etc.); > > 3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power of > food companies, etc.); > > 4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion, humanitarian > matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, etc.); > > 5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.); > > 6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.). > > What obvious issue areas have I left out? > > Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
Morgan Sheridan wrote:
> <delurking> > > just a though in passing... under the categories of > legal/political/globalizaton issues or ethical/moral issues, I would think > food rationing/distribution would develop as a sub-topic. > > Morgan S. > > > "ASmith1946" > wrote in message > ... > >>I've ended up with the responsibility to write an article on the history >>of counterculture food. As this is not my strength, I thought I'd ramble a >>bit and ask for your comments-- positive and negative. >> >>"Counterculture food" includes a wide group of individuals and groups >>opposed to corporate agriculture, corporate manufacturing of food, perceived >>government protection and subsidy of corporate food producers, and the globalization >>of food in general. Andy, I'm afraid I can't get the 60's out of my head when considering the whole notion of counterculture. I and many others ate a lot of stupid food and bought a lot of stupid toys and utensils because it was a kind of trickle-down reaction to genuine issues. We mostly rejected the past (as does every generation in its own fashion) because it was the past And we were so much smarter than anybody who had ever lived before. We cooked nasty-tasting things in primitive cooking equipment because it was cool rather than because we were making many statements of protest. Way up at the rarefied top of the philosophical tree there may well have been great thinkers pondering universal questions and conundrums. By the time it filtered down to us, we were eating things because we had the munchies, not because we were terribly worried about the plight of farmers in Uganda. The shock of The Great Folk Music Catastrophe in the late 50's set the stage for everything to be taken over by amateurs. So we wove bad cloth, threw clumsy pots, carved embarrassing sculptures, smoked junk weed, embroidered mad LSD dreams on our shirts and generally misbehaved thinking it was actually a valid rebellion against, um, something. We ate Alice B. Toklas brownies and blurted out "profound" observations about the world and we sang folk songs we had learned in New York where there are no folks. I think there's a great deal of plain and simple fashion and fad in counterculture behavior. Maybe a good and important idea way back at the beginning, but by the time it hit the streets, it was questionable, at best. Like Einstein strolling down Paul Robeson Place in Princeton with his fly open. I know. This is a good example of the logical flaw of extrapolating from the particular to the universal. >>Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster >>around the following overlapping issue areas: >> >>1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm >>vs factory farm, etc.); >> >>2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food, >>fast foods, obesity, etc.); >> >>3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power >>of food companies, etc.); >> >>4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion, >>humanitarian matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, etc.); >> >>5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.); >> >>6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.). >> >>What obvious issue areas have I left out? To me, this feels like the current picture rather than an overview of the various movements that ran counter to the prevailing culture's notions about food and health, etc. Think of the Kelloggs, Graham, Leibig. Later, McFadden et al. And more recently Euell Gibbons and the like. Might even tuck Robert Atkins in there. An ungenerous look calls them faddists. But they were also countercultural and, for better or worse, helped to shape the futures of the mainstream. Pastorio >> >>Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
>"ASmith1946" > wrote
>> Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster >> around the following overlapping issue areas: <snip> I agree with Bob that "counterculture" needs to be defined, particularly with regard to time frame. I remember a vegetarian cookbook published by high school students in the late 60s that had nothing to do with today's flavors of vegetarianism, but was part of a "boycott meat" protest when prices rose abruptly. As 'The Wild One' had it: "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" "Whadaya got?" Also, with Bob, one might say that virtually *any* diet or food fad is counter to the prevailing norm. You might want to take a look at "Perfection Salad: Women and Cooking at the Turn of the Century" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...67036?v=glance As I recall, it covers more than that restricted time period. You've picked a pretty wide-ranging subject. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
Thanks Bob.
Counterculture food started in America during the late sixties and early seventies. At its roots were the work of luminaries, such as Adelle Davis (Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit), J. I. Rodale (Organic Gardening and Farming), James S. Turner (The Chemical Feasts), and Francis Lappe (Diet for a Small Planet). It's core rejected corporate farming and the corporate food distribution system with the intent of replacing them with communes and food co-ops. (Some of America's most famous restaurants emerged from this ferment, including Alice Water's Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, and Mollie Katzen's Moosewood in Ithaca, New York.) There certainly were fads, but this image of "kooks and nuts" was also intentionally promoted by corporate media to discredit the movement. The counterculture food movement disappeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It was partly co-opted by businesses (who defined virtually all processed as "natural," "organic," "healthful," "fat free," etc.) and partly mutated into health food stores, macrobiotic diets, popular restaurants, support for the family farm (such as Community Supported Agriculture), green markets, and concern for food and hunger issues. Today, store-bought yoghurt, herbal teas, sprouts and soy products are remnants of this movement. During the 1990s, new concerns emerged to recreate the counterculture food movement: Globalization and genetic engineering. This movement rejects corporate farming and the corporate food distribution system. It wants to substitute backyard gardens, local family farms and food co-ops, and promote laws against genetic engineering, etc. How does this sound? Andy Smith > >Andy, I'm afraid I can't get the 60's out of my head when considering >the whole notion of counterculture. I and many others ate a lot of >stupid food and bought a lot of stupid toys and utensils because it >was a kind of trickle-down reaction to genuine issues. We mostly >rejected the past (as does every generation in its own fashion) >because it was the past And we were so much smarter than anybody who >had ever lived before. > >We cooked nasty-tasting things in primitive cooking equipment because >it was cool rather than because we were making many statements of >protest. Way up at the rarefied top of the philosophical tree there >may well have been great thinkers pondering universal questions and >conundrums. By the time it filtered down to us, we were eating things >because we had the munchies, not because we were terribly worried >about the plight of farmers in Uganda. The shock of The Great Folk >Music Catastrophe in the late 50's set the stage for everything to be >taken over by amateurs. So we wove bad cloth, threw clumsy pots, >carved embarrassing sculptures, smoked junk weed, embroidered mad LSD >dreams on our shirts and generally misbehaved thinking it was actually >a valid rebellion against, um, something. > >We ate Alice B. Toklas brownies and blurted out "profound" >observations about the world and we sang folk songs we had learned in >New York where there are no folks. > >I think there's a great deal of plain and simple fashion and fad in >counterculture behavior. Maybe a good and important idea way back at >the beginning, but by the time it hit the streets, it was >questionable, at best. Like Einstein strolling down Paul Robeson Place >in Princeton with his fly open. > >I know. This is a good example of the logical flaw of extrapolating >from the particular to the universal. > >>>Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster >>>around the following overlapping issue areas: >>> >>>1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm >>>vs factory farm, etc.); >>> >>>2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food, >>>fast foods, obesity, etc.); >>> >>>3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power >>>of food companies, etc.); >>> >>>4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion, >>>humanitarian matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, >etc.); >>> >>>5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.); >>> >>>6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.). >>> >>>What obvious issue areas have I left out? > >To me, this feels like the current picture rather than an overview of >the various movements that ran counter to the prevailing culture's >notions about food and health, etc. Think of the Kelloggs, Graham, >Leibig. Later, McFadden et al. And more recently Euell Gibbons and the >like. Might even tuck Robert Atkins in there. An ungenerous look calls >them faddists. But they were also countercultural and, for better or >worse, helped to shape the futures of the mainstream. > >Pastorio > > >>> >>>Andy Smith > > > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
In article >,
bogus address > wrote: |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
ASmith1946 wrote:
> Thanks Bob. > > Counterculture food started in America during the late sixties and early > seventies. At its roots were the work of luminaries, such as Adelle Davis > (Let's Eat Right to Keep Fit), J. I. Rodale (Organic Gardening and Farming), > James S. Turner (The Chemical Feasts), and Francis Lappe (Diet for a Small > Planet). It's core rejected corporate farming and the corporate food > distribution system with the intent of replacing them with communes and food > co-ops. (Some of America's most famous restaurants emerged from this ferment, > including Alice Water's Chez Panisse in Berkeley, California, and Mollie > Katzen's Moosewood in Ithaca, New York.) There certainly were fads, but this > image of "kooks and nuts" was also intentionally promoted by corporate media to > discredit the movement. There was a wonderfully hilarious restaurant in New Brunswick, New Jersey called (get ready!) Manna Fest Station in the late 60's and early 70's. Running it were deeply uninformed but idealistic communard hippie types who wanted everybody to eat brown rice and strange Asian dishes or South American concoctions that smelled like bird cages. My first wife worked there after we came apart and regaled me with tales of nasty-sounding dishes of whole grains and unusual fruits and veggies that they had no idea what to do with but they cooked into peculiar dishes anyway. They were vegetarians because "It was wrong to eat things with faces." Except my ex who happily plunged in at my parents' house for the holidays and ate things, faces notwithstanding I asked the leader of the pack if the place was making money. He looked startled. "I don't know," he said. I asked how long he could support it if it didn't make money. He really hadn't considered it. I asked why they served what they did and he spent a lot of time and way too many words explaining that these foods were more ecologically friendly and more "sustainable." He didn't really know what that meant, obviously. The real impetus behind the restaurant and the lifestyle that accompanied it was a rejection of what their parents had done. It wasn't so much they were moving towards something as that they were moving away from something. There was no real intellectual push. No real philosophical impulsion. > The counterculture food movement disappeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s. > It was partly co-opted by businesses (who defined virtually all processed as > "natural," "organic," "healthful," "fat free," etc.) and partly mutated into > health food stores, macrobiotic diets, popular restaurants, support for the > family farm (such as Community Supported Agriculture), green markets, and > concern for food and hunger issues. Today, store-bought yoghurt, herbal teas, > sprouts and soy products are remnants of this movement. Some significant other components still survive and are actually growing. Organic farming is a wider movement than it was just 10 years ago. Artisanal production of breads, cheeses, beers, liquors and other foods is increasing. These people are very often the same ones who tried to walk away from their roots. Now they've decided to go back further towards their roots when food was grown and prepared more simply and, according to them, more wholesomely. You can see this phenomenon in farmers' markets across the country. > During the 1990s, new concerns emerged to recreate the counterculture food > movement: Globalization and genetic engineering. This movement rejects > corporate farming and the corporate food distribution system. It wants to > substitute backyard gardens, local family farms and food co-ops, and promote > laws against genetic engineering, etc. > > How does this sound? I think it too rarefied a vision. An awful lot of the whole countercultural excitement was just about having fun. It was fun to play with woks. It was fun to eat raw fish. Joints the size of your thumb were fun. It was fun to wear gauzy shirts from India. Later, it was justified on ethical or moral or political grounds. Much of the whole era was about having a lark. Look at the Spring 2003 issue of Gastronomica for an article called "The Political Palate" subtitled "Reading Commune Cookbooks" for a different viewpoint than mine. Pastorio > Andy Smith > > >>Andy, I'm afraid I can't get the 60's out of my head when considering >>the whole notion of counterculture. I and many others ate a lot of >>stupid food and bought a lot of stupid toys and utensils because it >>was a kind of trickle-down reaction to genuine issues. We mostly >>rejected the past (as does every generation in its own fashion) >>because it was the past And we were so much smarter than anybody who >>had ever lived before. >> >>We cooked nasty-tasting things in primitive cooking equipment because >>it was cool rather than because we were making many statements of >>protest. Way up at the rarefied top of the philosophical tree there >>may well have been great thinkers pondering universal questions and >>conundrums. By the time it filtered down to us, we were eating things >>because we had the munchies, not because we were terribly worried >>about the plight of farmers in Uganda. The shock of The Great Folk >>Music Catastrophe in the late 50's set the stage for everything to be >>taken over by amateurs. So we wove bad cloth, threw clumsy pots, >>carved embarrassing sculptures, smoked junk weed, embroidered mad LSD >>dreams on our shirts and generally misbehaved thinking it was actually >>a valid rebellion against, um, something. >> >>We ate Alice B. Toklas brownies and blurted out "profound" >>observations about the world and we sang folk songs we had learned in >>New York where there are no folks. >> >>I think there's a great deal of plain and simple fashion and fad in >>counterculture behavior. Maybe a good and important idea way back at >>the beginning, but by the time it hit the streets, it was >>questionable, at best. Like Einstein strolling down Paul Robeson Place >>in Princeton with his fly open. >> >>I know. This is a good example of the logical flaw of extrapolating > >>from the particular to the universal. > >>>>Counterculture food groups have many divergent interests, but many cluster >>>>around the following overlapping issue areas: >>>> >>>>1. environmental and sustainability issues (organic gardening; family farm >>>>vs factory farm, etc.); >>>> >>>>2. health and nutrition issues (chemical additives, pesticides; junk food, >>>>fast foods, obesity, etc.); >>>> >>>>3. legal/political issues (labeling, approval processes, political power >>>>of food companies, etc.); >>>> >>>>4. ethical/moral issues (animal rights, vegetarianism, religion, >>>>humanitarian matters, hunger and malnutrition, food advertising/promotion, >> >>etc.); >> >>>>5. science/technology issues (GMOs, cloning, etc.); >>>> >>>>6. globalization issues (NAFTA, WTO, EU, etc.). >>>> >>>>What obvious issue areas have I left out? >> >>To me, this feels like the current picture rather than an overview of >>the various movements that ran counter to the prevailing culture's >>notions about food and health, etc. Think of the Kelloggs, Graham, >>Leibig. Later, McFadden et al. And more recently Euell Gibbons and the >>like. Might even tuck Robert Atkins in there. An ungenerous look calls >>them faddists. But they were also countercultural and, for better or >>worse, helped to shape the futures of the mainstream. >> >>Pastorio >> >>>>Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
On 12 Nov 2003 11:36:09 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
>Counterculture food started in America during the late sixties and early >seventies. I don't think so. Note Pastorio's mention of Kellogg and Graham, who were certainly "counterculture" in America in the 19th century. Here's an interesting reference: http://www.foodreference.com/html/artgranola.html >The counterculture food movement disappeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Again, this depends on your definitions. You mention that many 60s "counterculture" values later became absorbed into the mainstream. And that current movements having to do with food have shifted to distribution, corporate farming, food and animal additives, and GM concerns. Concerns may change or become part of the norm, but counterculture doesn't disappear; it mutates. It seems to me there have been food-related "counterculture" movements probably since the first cave dweller stuck a raw haunch of antelope on the fire and tried to convince its family that cooked was good. That is, counterculture food movements aren't a 1960s (or 1860s) phenomenon, but an continuum of changing positions with regard to nutrition, health, economics, religion, agriculture, and many of the other factors you mention. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
This may be just a semantic difference. There were certainly food reform
efforts in America before the 1960s and to some extent every reform effort is countercultural by definition. But the term "counterculture" was raised to specifically describe a broad phenomena that began in the '60. It wasn't really a food reform effort, at least it wasn't like Graham's or Kellogg's previous efforts. It was a political movement -- with the anti-Vietnam War being the driving force. It certainly had social and economic dimensions-- the attempt to create a better world through communal living and the destruction (or replacement) of the capitalist economic system. Food was just a side order. As soon as Vietnam War ended, so did the counterculture movement, although there are indeed remnants still around today. Recent food fights-- re GMOs and globalization-- do have some similar characteristcs as did the efforts during the '60s and '70s, which is why I added them to my original list. However, I'm tempted now, due to Bob's comments, to just define counterculture food as what happened during the '60s and 70s. Many, many thanks to all who have commented. Andy Smith > >>Counterculture food started in America during the late sixties and early >>seventies. > >I don't think so. Note Pastorio's mention of Kellogg and Graham, who >were certainly "counterculture" in America in the 19th century. Here's >an interesting reference: > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
> This may be just a semantic difference. There were certainly food > reform efforts in America before the 1960s and to some extent > every reform effort is countercultural by definition. > But the term "counterculture" was raised to specifically describe > a broad phenomena that began in the '60. It wasn't really a food > reform effort, at least it wasn't like Graham's or Kellogg's previous > efforts. It was a political movement -- with the anti-Vietnam War > being the driving force. It certainly had social and economic > dimensions-- the attempt to create a better world through communal > living and the destruction (or replacement) of the capitalist economic > system. Food was just a side order. > As soon as Vietnam War ended, so did the counterculture movement, > although there are indeed remnants still around today. I think you're isolating something that wasn't seen as a distinct phenomenon at the time, or (in its food-related aspects) as very different from what came before. Nor I am I convinced Vietnam had much to do with it. I arrived in the US in 1974, from Australia and NZ, and stayed two years, moving on to the UK. It struck me immediately that there was much *less* of an active counterculture in the US than I was used to, and what there was was mostly driven by black activism rather than anything to do with the war. The communal values that were being promoted as radical alternatives either came from Afro- American culture or were perceived as doing so. (And insofar as the US influenced radical movements in the rest of the developed world, it was again black politics, with its agenda for social change, that had more effect than the more limited politicized pacifism of the white anti-war movement). Others (like the collective-food-buying efforts that operated fitfully in all four countries I lived in round then) seemed to come out of forms of community organization moulded during prolonged strikes, dating back a few decades. I left shortly after the end of the Vietnam war, and in the UK the politicized-eating scene took off to a much greater extent after I got there - in the late 70s and into the early years of the Thatcher regime. And this was largely continuous with movements that came before and continued after; most of the wholefood co-operatives and "fair trade" initiatives that started then are still in operation in much the same way. (There have not been many new ones, you'd have a point there). I don't think the social movements of the late 60s and 70s would have been very different if the Vietnam War had never happened. ========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <======== Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760 <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes, Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
There are some useful history books on this subject:
Warren Belasco's _Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the Food Industry_ views the food reform movement of the 1960s and 1970s as many of the previous respondents do: as a leftist, pro-environmental, anti-corporate crusade against agribusiness and the food industry. James Whorton's _Crusaders for Fitness_ looks at the health reform tradition in America that originated in the first half of the 19th century. (He discusses Graham, Kellogg, etc.) Although the book does not go beyond the 1920s, in the book's conclusion and in other writings, he links the post-1960s food reform movement to this tradition. He sees the movement as basically concerned with health and, in particular, with fears about the impact of urban-industrial society on health. Next month, I believe, an article that I wrote on the subject will be published in Robert Johnston's _Politics of Healing_, an anthology of articles on alternative medicine in the US in the 20th century. I examine (what I call) the modern health foods movement, which originated in the 1930s in the wake of the discovery of vitamins and related nutritional matters. (The organic foods movement in the US was one part of this movement.) I discuss both the scientific aspect of the movement, and the ideological aspect (which is definitely anti-modernist and pro-environmental, but not fundamentally leftist -- in the 1950s the movement had close links to the far right). Although my articles stops in 1965, I believe that the food ideas embraced by the youth counterculture in the 1960s came mainly from the post-1930s health foods movement. (One difference: the post-1960s movement endorsed vegetarianism, while the earlier movement did not.) I'd also like to disagree with those who claim that the countercultural food movement died after the 1970s. Organic/sustainable agriculture, opposition to bioengineered foods, the slow-foods movement, etc. are all in the same anti-modernist ideological tradition as both the pre-and-post-1960s health foods movement. Michael Ackerman Grad Student, Dept. of History University of Virginia |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
Michael Ackerman wrote:
> There are some useful history books on this subject: > > Warren Belasco's _Appetite for Change: How the Counterculture Took on the > Food Industry_ views the food reform movement of the 1960s and 1970s as many > of the previous respondents do: as a leftist, pro-environmental, > anti-corporate crusade against agribusiness and the food industry. Did the counterculture really "take on" the food industry or did it simply opt out? Some of both? > James Whorton's _Crusaders for Fitness_ looks at the health reform tradition > in America that originated in the first half of the 19th century. (He > discusses Graham, Kellogg, etc.) Although the book does not go beyond the > 1920s, in the book's conclusion and in other writings, he links the > post-1960s food reform movement to this tradition. He sees the movement as > basically concerned with health and, in particular, with fears about the > impact of urban-industrial society on health. Lamentably, most of those pioneers were simply wrong about most of their tenets. No science to speak of but a great deal of conviction. Think Salisbury's steaks, Graham's flour that lives on as a sugary cookie, Kellogg's empty cereals and Post's ersatz grain products. > Next month, I believe, an article that I wrote on the subject will be > published in Robert Johnston's _Politics of Healing_, an anthology of > articles on alternative medicine in the US in the 20th century. I examine > (what I call) the modern health foods movement, which originated in the > 1930s in the wake of the discovery of vitamins and related nutritional > matters. (The organic foods movement in the US was one part of this > movement.) I discuss both the scientific aspect of the movement, and the > ideological aspect (which is definitely anti-modernist and > pro-environmental, but not fundamentally leftist -- in the 1950s the > movement had close links to the far right). Although my articles stops in > 1965, I believe that the food ideas embraced by the youth counterculture in > the 1960s came mainly from the post-1930s health foods movement. (One > difference: the post-1960s movement endorsed vegetarianism, while the > earlier movement did not.) And, I think it's fair to say, they also adopted other ways of eating because they were other ways. Macrobiotic and the like. > I'd also like to disagree with those who claim that the countercultural food > movement died after the 1970s. Organic/sustainable agriculture, opposition > to bioengineered foods, the slow-foods movement, etc. are all in the same > anti-modernist ideological tradition as both the pre-and-post-1960s health > foods movement. I agree that it's still alive. The Staunton, VA farmers' market where I live (and used to sell my products) shows it (about an hour from Charlottesville). There are conventional producers selling their wares, but also artisans who make baked goods, cheeses, soaps, etc. And other farmers who grow antique varieties of commodity plants. Others who grow livestock on open range. Not only health, but quality. Better flavors. Better utility. Better appearance. Closed for the season, unfortunately. Back up in april. Pastorio > Michael Ackerman > Grad Student, Dept. of History > University of Virginia |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
Bob Pastorio wrote:
> Michael Ackerman wrote: > >> Next month, I believe, an article that I wrote on the subject will be >> published in Robert Johnston's _Politics of Healing_, an anthology of >> articles on alternative medicine in the US in the 20th century. I >> examine >> (what I call) the modern health foods movement, which originated in the >> 1930s in the wake of the discovery of vitamins and related nutritional >> matters. (The organic foods movement in the US was one part of this >> movement.) I discuss both the scientific aspect of the movement, and the >> ideological aspect (which is definitely anti-modernist and >> pro-environmental, but not fundamentally leftist -- in the 1950s the >> movement had close links to the far right). Although my articles >> stops in >> 1965, I believe that the food ideas embraced by the youth >> counterculture in >> the 1960s came mainly from the post-1930s health foods movement. (One >> difference: the post-1960s movement endorsed vegetarianism, while the >> earlier movement did not.) > > > And, I think it's fair to say, they also adopted other ways of eating > because they were other ways. Macrobiotic and the like. As I recall, as macrobiotics we ate our share of chicken and fish, along with the dreaded tofu and great, disgusting wads of brown rice (which we cooked on a word-burning stove -- it took hours!). And pre-1960s, let's remember Adele Davis. Raw liver for breakfast, anyone? I think it's interesting that the gurus of both these "movements" died rather young. Peg |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
>
>I arrived in the US in 1974, from Australia and NZ, and stayed two >years, moving on to the UK. It struck me immediately that there >was much *less* of an active counterculture in the US than I was >used to, and what there was was mostly driven by black activism >rather than anything to do with the war. The communal values that >were being promoted as radical alternatives either came from Afro- >American culture or were perceived as doing so. While Vietnam "fell" in 1975, American troops were generally out in 1973, and the major anti-war demonstrations were over by then. As Warren Belasco points out in "Appetite for Change," the commune period was 1971-72. That you found little in 1974 doesn't surprise me and it seems that this supports my original statements. During the mid-70s, black power was a major focus, but I don't recall that it had many food dimensions other than inventing "soul food" and creating culinary traditions for Kwanza. (Okay-- you can all jump on this) > >I don't think the social movements of the late 60s and 70s would have >been very different if the Vietnam War had never happened. We disagree. I don't think the social movements of the '60s and '70s would not have taken the turns that they did without the Vietnam War. The war radicalized people. Once people lost faith in one aspect of the "system," it was easier to question other aspects and justify violent action, a la the Weathermen, and SDS. And violence turned many Americans against the radicals. Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
>
>I'd also like to disagree with those who claim that the countercultural food >movement died after the 1970s. Organic/sustainable agriculture, opposition >to bioengineered foods, the slow-foods movement, etc. are all in the same >anti-modernist ideological tradition as both the pre-and-post-1960s health >foods movement. > Michael: I look forward to reading your article. Your above statements, however, appear to me to disagree with Warren Belasco's views presented in "Appetite for Change." Warren points out that the core of the countercultural movement was the hippies, who stressed communial experiences. J. I. Rodale et al in organic gardening promoted the Jeffersonian ideal of the yeoman farmer, which is very different. Lumping very diverse groups who espouse very different ideals --communes, small organic farmers, anti-gmo and anti-globalization types -- simply because you define them as "anti-modernist" doesn't seem to me to be particularly helpful or insightful. Or am I misunderstanding your point? Andy Smith |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
History of Counterculture Food
>>As soon as Vietnam War ended, so did the counterculture movement, although
there are indeed remnants still around today.<< Food was one of the most enduring legacies of the 60s. The movement to "natural" food quickly spread (I have an all-organic recipe in a far-right religious pamphlet of the mid 70s) and continues to play out. -- -Mark H. Zanger author, The American History Cookbook, The American Ethnic Cookbook for Students www.ethnicook.com www.historycook.com "ASmith1946" > wrote in message ... > This may be just a semantic difference. There were certainly food reform > efforts in America before the 1960s and to some extent every reform effort is > countercultural by definition. > > But the term "counterculture" was raised to specifically describe a broad > phenomena that began in the '60. It wasn't really a food reform effort, at > least it wasn't like Graham's or Kellogg's previous efforts. It was a political > movement -- with the anti-Vietnam War being the driving force. It certainly had > social and economic dimensions-- the attempt to create a better world through > communal living and the destruction (or replacement) of the capitalist economic > system. Food was just a side order. > > As soon as Vietnam War ended, so did the counterculture movement, although > there are indeed remnants still around today. > > Recent food fights-- re GMOs and globalization-- do have some similar > characteristcs as did the efforts during the '60s and '70s, which is why I > added them to my original list. > > However, I'm tempted now, due to Bob's comments, to just define counterculture > food as what happened during the '60s and 70s. > > Many, many thanks to all who have commented. > > Andy Smith > > > > >>Counterculture food started in America during the late sixties and early > >>seventies. > > > >I don't think so. Note Pastorio's mention of Kellogg and Graham, who > >were certainly "counterculture" in America in the 19th century. Here's > >an interesting reference: > > > > > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Latin American Food And Its History | Mexican Cooking | |||
| History of BEER & FOOD Book | Beer | |||
| Foodways / Food history | General Cooking | |||
| Food History Site | General Cooking | |||
| American Food History Mysteries | Historic | |||
Linear Mode
