Culinary Conflict: When the Kitchen Wars

  The establishment of national dishes is one of the aspects of dietary identity. The boundaries of food are very fragile. The theoretical model is completely incompatible with the actual cooking. No matter what social class people are in, people must pay attention to the taste of the dishes. , how much it will cost, instead of thinking about national interests on eating.
  ”Other’s cooking” thus becomes a reference, which can be imitated or avoided as much as possible.
  The antagonism between France and England is also reflected in indirect culinary antagonisms, with many British restaurants refusing to include French dishes on their menus after the 18th century. The French court cooking undoubtedly deeply influenced the eating habits of the British aristocracy, and the so-called “home cooking”‘s real “counterattack” against the French influence cannot be ignored. In 1842, Jacques Aragon published “Dine in Paris”, when it comes to restaurants and public restaurants, his words can’t be more mean, but when it comes to French and English restaurants, he separates French food from British food and says that French food is really good. Delicious, British food is hard to swallow. Hungarian nationalists take advantage of the habits of the Germans, saying that the habits of the Germans are too “Germanic”, and they are the most powerful when it comes to eating: they prefer greasy dishes, the amount of dishes is huge, and they read books while eating. Huge damage to the lives of Hungarians. Anti-Semitic sentiment in Austria even spread to the culinary space, and in 1872 the Vienna Student Union established the first Germanic pub, prohibiting any Jewish students from sharing a table with them, and not allowing Jewish students to drink beer with Germanic students.
  Some other societies, modeled after the Vienna Student Union, also engage in such discriminatory behavior. The theory of “other” also links food with the morality of a certain group (more often, the defect of the group). The French “chestnut culture” is very telling. The chestnut itself does not have any special meaning, but since the 18th century, the chestnut has gradually been associated with the laziness of the grower. Scientist Shaptal said that “the chestnut orchard does not need human care”, and in 1863, Gaspalan declared in his book “Agricultural Course”: “Only relying on the fruit of one tree to feed their own people, must be in life. Stagnant.” Similar criticisms are mounting, with some slamming farmers in the Limousin region for their alleged idleness and others in Corsica. In 1905, Jean Lorrain said fiercely: “Chestnuts are the wheat of Corsica, which matches the poverty and laziness of the Corsican peasants.” : “The pie falls from the sky, the fruit falls from the tree, the top falls, and the bottom is picked up. Isn’t this the Eldorado dreamed by the socialists?” His political message is very clear: “chestnut culture” can breed laziness , guaranteeing that it will also breed rebellion and turmoil.
  The political crisis is the radicalization of the food phenomenon, and those who are seen as invaders are no longer simply adversaries, but enemies who come to destroy our civilization. “Other” cooking has since become a quintessential term in war culture, incorporating the category of patriotism: eating the enemy’s food, it is possible to absorb the enemy’s strengths and weaknesses. During the First World War, it was forbidden to eat German food. This “culinary rape” forces the government to respond to consumer goods that have become commonplace: if some foreign product has to be used, a revolution in derivatives is required. In 1918, sauerkraut, figure-eight muffins, and frankfurters disappeared from American stores and restaurants, becoming “Freedom Sauerkraut” and “Hot Dog,” and the hamburger’s name changed to “Freedom Sandwich.” Most of the foods that changed their names returned to their original names after the war, with the exception of hot dogs that replaced frankfurters.
  During the war, the warring parties often accused each other of being a man-eating beast. This statement is not uncommon. During the religious wars of the 16th century, several cities were besieged, and Catholics and Protestants also attacked each other as man-eating beasts. The First World War did not break away from this rut. The “man-eating beast” became a symbol of the enemy, and the “enemy” was a barbarian who was opposed to the basic values ​​of Western civilization. Some articles at the time denounced the Germans as animals, saying that in the German-occupied areas of northern and eastern France, the Germans committed cannibalism, and that children and women who fell prey to the appetite of the Germans further locked the image of the Germans as barbaric.
  In Germany, Italian cooking moved from being an “exotic food” in the 1920s to an “acceptable” status in the 1930s, because the two countries were geographically close and the two fascist countries had the same ideology. However, generally speaking, people did not like foreign food during this period. The guide book “Bedeker” was careful not to mention restaurants that serve foreign food. The same is true when it comes to big cities. Of course, you can also see one or two places. Italian signs, such as in Dresden, Vienna or Berlin. In 1938, in the chapter “The German Capital”, the guidebook mentioned a Chinese restaurant and a Japanese restaurant only once, and not once did it mention French restaurants, and there are quite a few French restaurants in Berlin! As for Russian food, the whole of Germany offers the address of only one Russian restaurant…
  a meal of global reach, a thorn in the side of pure localists. Long before the advent of the hamburger, French food was said to be imperialist, the insidious French food that quietly but successfully controlled all “national” food. Thus, against France as a catalyst for a nascent national identity: Muro, the Spaniard, wanted to convert the French vocabulary of cooking into Spanish; Hungary wanted to establish its own culinary system, free from French and especially German influence.
  The situation is similar in the UK, although Britons admit that French cuisine is still preferred at high-end banquets. No dish is “national” if it is not forcibly placed in a particular ideology. Hungarian food is very telling: Hungarians don’t want to deny the inheritance relationship between British and French cuisine and Hungarian cuisine, but they just can’t have anything to do with the Czech Republic and Germany. This “abhorrent” of German food is to establish the identity of Hungarian cuisine, while promoting the integration of the various ethnic groups living in Hungary. For Vienna’s “Chef’s Handbook”, the Hungarian dishes listed on the Hungarian cookbook include beef stew with shallots, savory vegetable stew, chicken stew with sweet peppers and cabbage wraps.
  From the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century, the nationalism of meals inevitably led to thinking about the cooking of the “other”, whenever it was related to the introduction of certain culinary traditions by the foreign population, it was necessary to cook the “other”. Art has a strong speech. This happened to Italians in Lorraine in the 19th century, where Italians were described as “shoddy and stinky”. In the 1970s, when the first McDonald’s restaurant was opened in Japan, there was widespread concern among the people. These concerns were often exaggerated and imagined. Later, the West also responded to the “Chinese restaurant” in the same way. The reason is the same, “other” cooking is scary, especially when it mixes “sound and taste”. Refusing to bow to “national food” is actually refusing to share the same destiny with the whole nation. Inclusion needs to be done through food. In America, criticism has rained down on Italians who cling to European culinary traditions and dismiss those around them, despite their desire to make authentic pizza.
  Whether it is immigrant cooking or foreign cooking, the root of the “ethnic” problem is always the fear that the culinary culture that represents identity will be disintegrated and diluted. ” of cooking. Anti-Americanism is an important part of this culture. On June 27, 1931, Gurnonsky, known as the “Prince of gourmet food,” wrote an article for The Laughing News, in which he snarled American food, even though he himself had never been to the United States: “After taking a seat, it’s just for eating and drinking. There are really no words to describe the horror of American restaurants. It’s like a scene often seen in movies. The girl with more than half of her body exposed is playing trapeze, and the guests greet the surrounding people. Tossing ribbons and leftover sausage skins on the table, no matter how hygienic… In short, I don’t feel like I’m eating! Seeing such a situation, I can’t help but have some sincere respect for our French restaurants and hotels. Our place has not been invaded by these noises. Live our days!” The special issue of Laughter also includes an anti-Semitic comic strip comparing how different people behave at the dinner table, suggesting that “the French The image of “man” is completely opposed to “Jew”, and the Jew is naturally the other. Hergé, the author of “The Adventures of Tintin”, was not polite. When he wrote about the Americas, he sneered at the canned food made of unknown ingredients – in fact, he was unabashedly alluding to the Chicago poisoning case, international news There are detailed reports on the case.