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

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >
> >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

Usually they are in larger (and maybe posh) supermarkets or specialty
shops in the UK. The walnut ketchup/catsup was harder to get and seemed
to appear around Christmas mostly, along with the pickled walnuts. Never
tried to buy it in the US and haven't tried to buy any in the UK within
the past 5 years.

Let's see what's online:

mushroom ketchup
http://www.ketchupworld.com/geowatmusket.html

anchovy ketchup/essence
http://www.britishgoods.com/Sauces.htm
(although anchovy paste works perfectly well in most recipes calling for
the essence)

Didn't find an online source of walnut ketchup/catsup. You might ask on
uk.food+drink.misc if someone can get you a bottle (if it's still made)
and send it along.
Otherwise Mrs Beeton has a recipe for it.

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

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >
> >> 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

LOL no doubt but I'm not a botanist by trade.

>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

I seem to remember bananas comtaining seeds back when I was a kid.
These weren't like watermellon seeds -- they were small and soft and
didn't contribute anything to the banana's texture but you could see
them -- i.e. something you see but not really taste or feel. I think
modern bananas have been hydridized not to have them anymore like some
oranges.

Cookie


ASmith1946 wrote:

>>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

ASmith1946 wrote:
>
> >
> >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

But I always thought the little specks in commercial bananas were seeds,
although sterile?

But here is a place to get banana seeds:
http://www.bananagarden.com/catalogv3/default.php