>
>As I said in my earler post, tomatoes are common in southern Italian
>cooking - from Campania down. But there's a wild fallacy that southern
>Italians put it in everything. This just ain't true. I've spent a lot
>of time working with the food in Basilicata, traditionally a poor area,
>with a wonderful simple cuisine. But have a look at this site on the
>food of this area - right down in the south
>
>http://www.bancadati.it/basilicata/b-ricette.html
>
>You'll find tomatoes in a number of the recipes, but it's far from
>ubiquitous - probably less common than parsley or chillies. and
>remember, in southern Italian cooking the tomato is often used just
>like parsley, in quite small quantities.
>
>And the fact that it's popular in some parts of the south can't be made
>to apply to the whole country. I spend a lot of time in Tuscany, and
>there you'd hardly notice tomatoes. ..
>
>

It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this discussion.
First, there are empirical ones-- how many tomatoes do Italians eat? How does
this compare with others? I maintain that, pound for pound, Italians eat more
tomatoes than any other fruit or vegetable, including parsley or chillies. In
fact, parsely and chillies are not even close. In addition, Italians eat more
tomatoes on a per capita basis than do other Europeans.

Second, there are the culinary myths that you and others have raised-- not all
Italians eat gobs of tomatoes at every meal, and even in the south where tomato
consumption is highest, tomatoes are certainly not used in every dish. And
Italian-America food (based, incidently, largely on southern Italian
immigrants) is not the same as the food eaten in Italy today. These are indeed
myths, it seems to me.

Finally, we're back to what is a national cuisine. Do the Italians have one? Or
alternately, do Italians have a national cuisine and tomatoes are just not a
component?

Andy Smith

In article >, ASmith1946
> wrote:



> It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
> discussion.


This is a useful teasing apart of strands. There's not much here I'd
disagree with, although I'm not (yet!) convinced that they eat more
tomatoes than any other fruit of vegetable. Be interesting to find out,
though. Wheat??? Remember it's used , in the form of grain wheat, as a
vegetable in Tuscan soups, and as a key ingredient in a neapolitan
easter cake flavoured with orange flower water.
> First, there are empirical ones-- how many tomatoes do Italians eat? How does
> this compare with others? I maintain that, pound for pound, Italians eat more
> tomatoes than any other fruit or vegetable,

> including parsley or chillies.
Of course these are only eaten in tiny quantities.

> In
> fact, parsely and chillies are not even close. In addition, Italians eat more
> tomatoes on a per capita basis than do other Europeans.

At a guess I'm sure this is true.
>
> Second, there are the culinary myths that you and others have raised-- not all
> Italians eat gobs of tomatoes at every meal, and even in the south where
> tomato
> consumption is highest, tomatoes are certainly not used in every dish. And
> Italian-America food (based, incidently, largely on southern Italian
> immigrants) is not the same as the food eaten in Italy today. These are indeed
> myths, it seems to me.
>
> Finally, we're back to what is a national cuisine. Do the Italians have one?

I think they do - in the same way as the French do. It's a collection
of different regional cuisines, in the same way.
Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

>There's not much here I'd
>disagree with, although I'm not (yet!) convinced that they eat more
>tomatoes than any other fruit of vegetable. Be interesting to find out,
>though. Wheat??? Remember it's used , in the form of grain wheat, as a

I guess from a scientific standpoint wheat is a fruit, but it common parlance
it is usually not classed as such. I don't have the statistics at hand, but I
have no doubt that Italians eat more wheat pound for pound than they do
tomatoes. I don't know how to test your view that Italians possibly eat more
wheat when it is consumed as a vegetable than they do tomatoes. I'd find that
difficult to believe.

>>
>> Finally, we're back to what is a national cuisine. Do the Italians have
>one?
>
>I think they do - in the same way as the French do. It's a collection
>of different regional cuisines, in the same way.

We're back to this discussion -- which I found useful-- so let me try again.
Are there commonalities among regional Italian foods? If the answer is yes,
what are they? Does this include dishes with tomatoes as ingredients?

If the answer is no, then there doesn't seem to be an "Italian cuisine," only
local cusines-- or are there just individual preferences?

Andy Smith

ASmith1946 extrapolated from data available...


>
> We're back to this discussion -- which I found useful-- so let me try
> again. Are there commonalities among regional Italian foods? If the
> answer is yes, what are they? Does this include dishes with tomatoes
> as ingredients?
>
> If the answer is no, then there doesn't seem to be an "Italian
> cuisine," only local cusines-- or are there just individual
> preferences?
>

My first trip to Italy, 1962 or so, had fortunately been preceded by 6
months in Brooklyn and Manhattan, Brooklyn certainly a locale where one
could safely classify the tomato as king. I know cannoli and clams
Oregenata (sp?)have no tomatoes, but beyond that, Brooklyn, Queens and the
great tomato growing plains of Long Island, a veritable insular Campagna,
are strongly pomidoculturalized.

For serving naval personnel, Italy was largely Southern, and for my ship to
venture North to Livorno or Genoa was as if we were visiting a new land,
after the Vesuvian Bay, Palermo, Taranto - a less tomato-ee cuisine,
Augusta Bay, Catania, Bari and the like including hops to Sigonella. On my
salary at the time, an Enswine's $222 + $47.88 less taxes and messbill
monthly, I and my kind dined modestly, and modest restaurant fare in
Southern Italy was pretty firmly tomato-based....although I did learn to
make a number of sauces, quick and slow, which has seved me well in life,
although trying to convey to my spouse and chirren the differences between
"Tomato Gravy", arrabiata, ameritrice', marinara, puttanesca, etc. can be a
daunting task, much less explaining that even "Cream of Tomato" must have
been an Italian thing invented by some butter gorged Bolognese farting
around with the ragu. Opportunities to eat in Italian homes (other than
the very hospitable poor and modest middle class to whom one brought gifts
in the form of foodstuffs cheap and available to me, expensive and hard
to find for them) in the South were few, although the Navy Officers Club in
Taranto featured a menu that was clearly "Northern", but then the officers
in the Italian navy at the time seemed overwhelmingly Northern in fact or
in pretense.

I'll forward the notion that Italian cuisine can be separated into two
"styles" on some mushy Southwest/Northeast hazy line of demarcation, but
that there are a number of such strongly identifiable regional and even
community cuisines which have an identity of their own...Bologna and
Florence qualify, Livorno's really a littoral region, and some would claim
that Rome even possesses neighborhood cuisines. Clearly, the Northeast
stands either alone or as a Transmontane cuisine. Then there's Venice.....

But even that's not sufficient, for except in small towns (and not always
there), much of Italian restaurant cuisine has become homogenized to fit
the owners' or the surroundings' profile of projected customers, too often
the sort of generic Italoturistico, "Continental, or "Business traveler".

TMO

In article >, ASmith1946
> wrote:

> We're back to this discussion -- which I found useful-- so let me try again.
> Are there commonalities among regional Italian foods? If the answer is yes,
> what are they? Does this include dishes with tomatoes as ingredients?
>
> If the answer is no, then there doesn't seem to be an "Italian cuisine," only
> local cusines-- or are there just individual preferences?
>

This is interesting - although again I think we'll be arguing about
definitions rather than what's on the ground. Of course you're right
about wheat, it's a tiny useage - but I've just noticed that "leaves
from our tuscan kitchen" 1899 lists macharroni (or whatever) as one
vegetable along with many others. And it's interesting to see how few
recipes there contain tomatoes.

There's a second point, which i think is interesting - the difference
between tomatoes as a food and as a relish, or seasoning, which the
italians havae brought to a fine art, although America and England
haven't done badly. (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
as an East west conduit)

This is written in one hell of a rush, but when i have time i'll try to
address your point.

Bob, if you see this, sorry i didn't spot your new identity!

Best wishes

Tony

--
Remover the rock from the email address

> (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
>and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
>as an East west conduit)



The word "ketchup" originated in China, but it is not likely from Mandarin--
but some southern dialect. Initially, it mean fermented or pickled fish. As the
word migrated through Southeast Asia, it shifted meanings. By the time it
reached Indonesia, it meant (and continues to mean) fermented soy and other
fermented products.

The British ran into it in their colony in what is today Indonesia, and brought
the concept back to England. Early ketchups were made from mushrooms,
anchovies, walnuts, etc. Eventually ketchup was made from every common
vegetable and fruit. Tomato came into existence about 1800 in the UK and US.
Tomato ketchup became dominant in the US after the Civil War, as a byproduct of
the tomato canning industry. The low price of tomato ketchup eventually drove
the other ketchups out of business in the US (by the 1930s) and in the UK by
the 1960s.

And before anyone asks, yes, I did write a book on this too -- Pure Ketchup: A
Social History of America's National Condiment (Columbia: The University of
South Carolina Press, 1996) and the paperback edition was released by the
Smithsonian Institution Press in April 2001.

See what a misspent research/writing life I've led?

Andy Smith

In article >, ASmith1946
> wrote:

> > (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
> >and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
> >as an East west conduit)
>
>
>
> The word "ketchup" originated in China,....

Crikey! That's the last time I ask a rhetorical question!

Many thanks!

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Lazarus Cooke wrote:
>
> In article >, ASmith1946
> > wrote:
>
> > > (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
> > >and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
> > >as an East west conduit)
> >
> >
> >
> > The word "ketchup" originated in China,....
>
> Crikey! That's the last time I ask a rhetorical question!
>
> Many thanks!
>
> L


ROTFL! You should know better by now

ASmith1946 extrapolated from data available...


>
> And before anyone asks, yes, I did write a book on this too -- Pure
> Ketchup: A Social History of America's National Condiment (Columbia:
> The University of South Carolina Press, 1996) and the paperback
> edition was released by the Smithsonian Institution Press in April
> 2001.
>
> See what a misspent research/writing life I've led?
>
In several episodes of the popular TV series, Iron Chefs, the Chinese
champion(s) uses US Ketchup (no pretense of Chinese origin) as an ingedient
in shrimp dishes because of its savory sweetness.

Much publicized in the US lately has been the supposed overtaking and
passing of ketchup sales by those of picante sauce (a culinary trend in
which Heinz has been left far behind by other Tomato-based food
conglomerates. Just think, soon your next edition will have a title change
to "Former National Condiment".

Tomato paste is certainly an ingredient with applications spreading far
beyond the realm of the tomato, coloring agent, thickener, modest
acidifier.

TMO

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> > (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
> >and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
> >as an East west conduit)
>
> The word "ketchup" originated in China, but it is not likely from Mandarin--
> but some southern dialect. Initially, it mean fermented or pickled fish. As the
> word migrated through Southeast Asia, it shifted meanings. By the time it
> reached Indonesia, it meant (and continues to mean) fermented soy and other
> fermented products.
>
> The British ran into it in their colony in what is today Indonesia, and brought
> the concept back to England. Early ketchups were made from mushrooms,
> anchovies, walnuts, etc.


They still are available in the UK. I've bought bottled versions of all
three and cooked with them. Many people still make them at home too.


Eventually ketchup was made from every common
> vegetable and fruit. Tomato came into existence about 1800 in the UK and US.
> Tomato ketchup became dominant in the US after the Civil War, as a byproduct of
> the tomato canning industry. The low price of tomato ketchup eventually drove
> the other ketchups out of business in the US (by the 1930s) and in the UK by
> the 1960s.

Ummm the 'other' ketchups are still made commercially, although perhaps
considered specialty items now.

>
> And before anyone asks, yes, I did write a book on this too -- Pure Ketchup: A
> Social History of America's National Condiment (Columbia: The University of
> South Carolina Press, 1996) and the paperback edition was released by the
> Smithsonian Institution Press in April 2001.
>
> See what a misspent research/writing life I've led?
>
> Andy Smith

LOL!

>
>They still are available in the UK. I've bought bottled versions of all
>three and cooked with them. Many people still make them at home too.
>

Arri:

Where do you buy them? I was able to get the until a few years ago, then they
disappeared.

Andy Smith

Lazarus Cooke wrote:

> In article >, ASmith1946
> > wrote:
>
>
> There's a second point, which i think is interesting - the difference
> between tomatoes as a food and as a relish, or seasoning, which the
> italians havae brought to a fine art, although America and England
> haven't done badly. (Which is ketchup? I assume it's indian in origin
> and I think of it as being heinz par excellence but I think of England
> as an East west conduit)

Early catsups were usually made from mushrooms or walnuts or even
anchovies. I think the tomato was a latecomer to the catsup bottle.
There is also a lot of debate about its geographical origin. There seem
to be as many opinions as there are writers.

Cookie

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >There's not much here I'd
> >disagree with, although I'm not (yet!) convinced that they eat more
> >tomatoes than any other fruit of vegetable. Be interesting to find out,
> >though. Wheat??? Remember it's used , in the form of grain wheat, as a
>
> I guess from a scientific standpoint wheat is a fruit, but it common parlance
> it is usually not classed as such.

No, wheat is a seed. A fruit is a container for seeds. So tomatoes are
fruits, while wheat is not.


I don't have the statistics at hand, but I
> have no doubt that Italians eat more wheat pound for pound than they do
> tomatoes. I don't know how to test your view that Italians possibly eat more
> wheat when it is consumed as a vegetable than they do tomatoes. I'd find that
> difficult to believe.
>
> >>
> >> Finally, we're back to what is a national cuisine. Do the Italians have
> >one?
> >
> >I think they do - in the same way as the French do. It's a collection
> >of different regional cuisines, in the same way.
>
> We're back to this discussion -- which I found useful-- so let me try again.
> Are there commonalities among regional Italian foods? If the answer is yes,
> what are they? Does this include dishes with tomatoes as ingredients?
>
> If the answer is no, then there doesn't seem to be an "Italian cuisine," only
> local cusines-- or are there just individual preferences?
>
> Andy Smith

>
>No, wheat is a seed. A fruit is a container for seeds. So tomatoes are
>fruits, while wheat is not.

By definition, wheat is the fruit of Triticum plant. Unless you eat wheat germ,
which is the seed, the part we consume is that which encases the seed-- aka the
fruit.

Andy Smith

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >
> >No, wheat is a seed. A fruit is a container for seeds. So tomatoes are
> >fruits, while wheat is not.
>
> By definition, wheat is the fruit of Triticum plant. Unless you eat wheat germ,
> which is the seed, the part we consume is that which encases the seed-- aka the
> fruit.
>
> Andy Smith

LOL Ok I learnt it a little differently.

>
>> By definition, wheat is the fruit of Triticum plant. Unless you eat wheat
>germ,
>> which is the seed, the part we consume is that which encases the seed-- aka
>the
>> fruit.
>>
>> Andy Smith
>
>LOL Ok I learnt it a little differently.
>



Here I thought, botany was botany,
the world around, and all scientists agreed
upon the basics, such as nomenclature and definitions...

Andy Smith

>So tomatoes are
>fruits, while wheat is not.

And furthermore... while the tomato is the fruit of the tomato plant, it is in
fact a berry, by definition.

Andy Smith

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >So tomatoes are
> >fruits, while wheat is not.
>
> And furthermore... while the tomato is the fruit of the tomato plant, it is in
> fact a berry, by definition.
>
> Andy Smith

Yes, but berries are fruits...they contain seeds.

>
>Yes, but berries are fruits...they contain seeds.

True, true...

How about commercial bananas? They are not a fruit, as they do not contain
seeds. Are they botanically an herb?

Andy

On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
>
>It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this discussion.

Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
that's "typically Italian."

In article >, Frogleg
> wrote:

> On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> >
> >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
> >discussion.
>
> Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> that's "typically Italian."

As an Irishman, constructed almost entirely from potato, I accept this.
But I think we have to be cautious. The past six hundred odd years and
more have consisted of frantic shipping of food crops from one place to
another. Fifty years after a food crop has started being grown in a
country it seems like part of the landscape. Think of all those
tropical staples (by which I mean energy-rich foods like potatoes, rice
and wheat that form a lot of the basic fuel) such as breadfruit et al
that were shunted around.

None of the staples I was brought up on - wheat, potatoes, rice - were
native to Ireland, but they seem to be to most of the people there.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

Frogleg wrote:
>
> On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> >
> >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this discussion.
>
> Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> that's "typically Italian."

True, although polenta was made from other grains prior to the
introduction of maize.

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Frogleg wrote:
> >
> > On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> > >
> > >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
discussion.
> >
> > Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> > that's "typically Italian."
>
> True, although polenta was made from other grains prior to the
> introduction of maize.

I read somewhere just recently that "polenta" was also made from chestnut
flour.

Charlie

Charles Gifford wrote:
>
> "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Frogleg wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> > > >
> > > >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
> discussion.
> > >
> > > Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> > > that's "typically Italian."
> >
> > True, although polenta was made from other grains prior to the
> > introduction of maize.
>
> I read somewhere just recently that "polenta" was also made from chestnut
> flour.
>
> Charlie

Could easily be true. The French have used chestnut flour to make purees
along the lines of mashed potato. Why not the Italians.

"Arri London" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Charles Gifford wrote:
> >
> > "Arri London" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Frogleg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
> > discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World
ingredient
> > > > that's "typically Italian."
> > >
> > > True, although polenta was made from other grains prior to the
> > > introduction of maize.
> >
> > I read somewhere just recently that "polenta" was also made from
chestnut
> > flour.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Could easily be true. The French have used chestnut flour to make purees
> along the lines of mashed potato. Why not the Italians.

I stayed in a small town north of Verona a few years back and they had
chestnut trees all around. Apparently it was a staple at one time in the
past, though I don't know exactly when.

Steve

wrote:
>
> "Arri London" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Charles Gifford wrote:
> > >
> > > "Arri London" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Frogleg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
> > > discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World
> ingredient
> > > > > that's "typically Italian."
> > > >
> > > > True, although polenta was made from other grains prior to the
> > > > introduction of maize.
> > >
> > > I read somewhere just recently that "polenta" was also made from
> chestnut
> > > flour.
> > >
> > > Charlie
> >
> > Could easily be true. The French have used chestnut flour to make purees
> > along the lines of mashed potato. Why not the Italians.
>
> I stayed in a small town north of Verona a few years back and they had
> chestnut trees all around. Apparently it was a staple at one time in the
> past, though I don't know exactly when.
>
> Steve

Probably not all that long ago. They are pretty nutritious I think.
The dried chestnuts in the Chinese shops are pretty good and quite
cheap.

Frogleg wrote:
> On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
>
>>It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this discussion.
>
>
> Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> that's "typically Italian."

Polenta and cornmeal mush are the same thing. They are both cornmeal
and water. So polenta is not unique or original to Italy. African
countries that use a lot of corn probably have their own versions.

Fancy Old World polenta has a little parmesan added. Fancy New World
cornmeal mush has a little cheddar added to the dish.

Cookie

Cookie Cutter wrote:

> Frogleg wrote:
>
>> On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within
>>> this discussion.
>>
>> Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World
>> ingredient that's "typically Italian."
>
> Polenta and cornmeal mush are the same thing.

They *can be* the same thing. But they aren't necessarily the same.
Different kinds of corn, processed differently give different finished
results. Different cooking techniques give different results. Some
people hereabouts in Virginia make mush in double boilers. Decidedly
not a traditional Italian approach.

> They are both cornmeal and water.

And don't forget the salt. But it's not that simple. Here in the
American south where I live, mush can be made with many different
ingredients like milk, sugar, egg, bacon fat, etc.

My northern Italian family eats polenta that's bare bones yellow corn
meal, water and salt with never another thing added to that basic
formula. Others have their variants, but polenta is typically seen as
a foil for other foods rather than something to stand out on its own.

> So polenta is not unique or original to Italy. African countries
> that use a lot of corn probably have their own versions.

I don't think anyone said that it was uniquely Italian. Most likely,
anywhere they grow corn has a variation of the basic boiled dried,
cracked corn. According to Gary Jennings in private conversation some
years back, the Aztecs made a gruel from lightly cracked corn simmered
for a long time. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing new
under the sun is "Non-fat coffee cream" (honest. At my sister's house
yesterday).

> Fancy Old World polenta has a little parmesan added.

Not necessarily, and not usually.

> Fancy New World cornmeal mush has a little cheddar added to the
> dish.

I guess it depends on where you live and what the traditions there
are. And don't forget grits (made from hominy rather than plain ground
corn).

Pastorio

In article >, this one
> wrote:

> I've come to the conclusion that the only thing new
> under the sun is "Non-fat coffee cream" (honest. At my sister's house
> yesterday).

I remember years ago seeing a great packet:

"Omlette mixtu just add eggs"

!!!!

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In ,
Frogleg wrote :

> On 10 May 2004 11:14:04 GMT, (ASmith1946) wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that we have several interesting threads within this
>> discussion.
>
> Anyone care to bring polenta to the boil? Another New World ingredient
> that's "typically Italian."

In the Aosta valley (northern Italy), italophone Switzerland and
south-eastern France true polenta is still made from chestnut flour, the
maize flour substitute is also (more and more) named polenta, and sorrily
the chestnut polenta is being slowly forgotten, but maize is clearly a
substitute.

--
Salutations, greetings,
Guiraud Belissen, Chteau du Ciel, Drachenwald
Chris CII, Rennes, France