Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#21

Post by mcphage »

causi wrote: post #7
1letterunixname wrote: post #2

Post 1550 as part of the Columbian interchange, the Old World owes these to the New: tomato, maize/corn, squash, peppers, chili pepper, cocoa, potato, sweet potato, avocado, vanilla, tobacco.[0] It would seem that although most staples and dishes are hundreds-thousands of years old (bread c. 30k BCE), what would qualify as modern pizza couldn't exist before the 16th c., although it arrived c. 18th-19th c. 0. https://…

Pizza predates the use of the tomato. The oldest mention of pizza in text is from 997 C.E.

> Pizza predates the use of the tomato.

What makes it pizza specifically at that point?

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#23

Post by orwin »

Joker_vD wrote: post #13
Mordisquitos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Italy only became a unified state mid 19th century too...

Which makes it an actual national tradition. Nations only really started to appear at the end of the XVIII century.

My pet theory is that the beginning of the idea of a nation start with Louise de Savoie. The intrigues she ran harshly reduced the power of dukes while giving the royal domain and it's merchants a lot of power. The narratives the French crown drew around itself and its power helped, and the consolidated territories, removing a lot of enclaves and foreign vassals (things other crowns started to do too) was to me the beginning of the 'territorial integrity' idea.

And it's only her second biggest achievement.

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#24

Post by boomchinolo78 »

submain wrote: post #16
taeric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is crazy to me how much our modern ideas on food and clothing are more modern than we realize. Always fun to point out that places that have what we call "spicy" food got there by import. Even bread, I suspect, is probably a lot different than we realize. There is a wide range in what that can cover, with many of the types of bread that last longer being popular for their longevity in older times. And that doesn't…

Bread is indeed different nowadays, specially in the americas. Modern wheat was "invented" by Norman Borlaug in the 60s. It was genetically modified (through breeding and other means) to provide higher yield. Some places, like Italy and France, still use the old low yield "original" wheat. I learned this painful lesson when I thought I had gluten allergy. I can't eat any kind of bread in the US. But when I went to Fr…

Also, AFAIK they don't add iron shavings to it

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#26

Post by NoRelToEmber »

Joker_vD wrote: post #13
Mordisquitos wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Italy only became a unified state mid 19th century too...

Which makes it an actual national tradition. Nations only really started to appear at the end of the XVIII century.

A modern falsehood. The concept of a nation is far older - it really should not come as a surprise that defining the in-group based on kinship is an ancient practice. That's what the word itself is derived from - the Latin word for birth, i.e. common birth. Only the scale has changed, and even that not as much as some like to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

Even groups such as the Navajo fit perfectly well under the 'nation' concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation

In general, I'd advise more skepticism of such outlandish claims that fly in the face of common sense and instinct.

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#27

Post by WirelessGigabit »

submain wrote: post #16
taeric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is crazy to me how much our modern ideas on food and clothing are more modern than we realize. Always fun to point out that places that have what we call "spicy" food got there by import. Even bread, I suspect, is probably a lot different than we realize. There is a wide range in what that can cover, with many of the types of bread that last longer being popular for their longevity in older times. And that doesn't…

Bread is indeed different nowadays, specially in the americas. Modern wheat was "invented" by Norman Borlaug in the 60s. It was genetically modified (through breeding and other means) to provide higher yield. Some places, like Italy and France, still use the old low yield "original" wheat. I learned this painful lesson when I thought I had gluten allergy. I can't eat any kind of bread in the US. But when I went to Fr…

Bread in the USA is an abomination. There. I said it.

Any bread in the normal isle that you can buy and have on your counter for over a week, where it still looks and feels and tastes the same is an abomination.

It is not bread. It is a super-processed food which makes you initially feel full but digests very rapidly, leaving you hungry again.

100 calories of engineered US bread compared to 100 calories of steel cut oats is a good example. The latter will keep you full much longer.

I remember going to an actual bakery in Belgium, you know, the guy who wakes up at 3AM to make bread. Get a fresh bread. Still warm. If you leave it on the counter for 2 days it is rock hard. Because it is unprocessed (or at least a lot less).

I guess we have to thank Kroger for putting the bakeries in the US out of business.

Wonder 'bread'. I wonder if it's bread...

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#28

Post by bluGill »

nerdponx wrote: post #14
taeric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is crazy to me how much our modern ideas on food and clothing are more modern than we realize. Always fun to point out that places that have what we call "spicy" food got there by import. Even bread, I suspect, is probably a lot different than we realize. There is a wide range in what that can cover, with many of the types of bread that last longer being popular for their longevity in older times. And that doesn't…

This seems to be a common thread throughout history. It's hard to distinguish old traditions from very old traditions from ancient ones, so they all become a blurred jumble, and the traditions just are whatever they are at any given time.

Tradition is anything your grandparents did that you also do. Few people remember their great-grandparents well enough to know if they also did something, (with modern medicine this is somewhat more likely, but still not common) and thus few have any clue if it is something their grandparents started or not.

Unless of course it was written down. Some religions have things written down as of a few thousand years ago. Just looking at them though we can see plenty of examples of things written down being ignored for a while and then some reformer comes and revives the tradition. Anything not written down is questionable in ability to survive for long.

Re: Debunking the Myth of the National Dish

#29

Post by hahaxdxd123 »

NoRelToEmber wrote: post #26
Joker_vD wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which makes it an actual national tradition. Nations only really started to appear at the end of the XVIII century.

A modern falsehood. The concept of a nation is far older - it really should not come as a surprise that defining the in-group based on kinship is an ancient practice. That's what the word itself is derived from - the Latin word for birth, i.e. common birth. Only the scale has changed, and even that not as much as some like to claim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation Even groups such as the Navajo fit perfectly wel…

Your links don't support your claims.

Can you really claim that nationalism existed among the majority of people when those people were illiterate, had never traveled more than 10 miles outside their place of birth, and had never met someone who they could place outside their concept of their nation?

Post reply on HN