Sean Carroll's Mindscape: Science, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Arts, and Ideas - 147 | Rachel Laudan on Cuisine, Culture, and Empire

Episode Date: May 17, 2021

For as much as people talk about food, a good case can be made that we don't give it the attention or respect it actually deserves. Food is central to human life, and how we go about the process of creating and consuming it — from agriculture to distribution to cooking to dining — touches the most mundane aspects of our daily routines as well as large-scale questions of geopolitics and culture. Rachel Laudan is a historian of science whose masterful book, Cuisine and Empire, traces the development of the major world cuisines and how they intersect with politics, religion, and war. We talk about all this, and Rachel gives her pitch for granting more respect to "middling cuisine" around the world. Support Mindscape on Patreon. Rachel Laudan received a Ph. D. in History and Philosophy of Science from University College London. She retired from academia after teaching at Carnegie-Mellon, the University of Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, and the University of Hawaii. Among her awards are the Jane Grigson/Julia Child prize of the International Association of Culinary Professionals and the IACP Cookbook Award for Best Book in Culinary History. Web site Blog Amazon author page Wikipedia Twitter

What if you could get more from what you already do? As a Shell Fuel Rewards member, that's just a regular weekday evening. You get more rewards, more savings, and more special offers. Earn rewards when shopping, dining out, and fueling up. And all of that becomes fuel savings when you're at the pump. Use the Shell app and enjoy life with more. Your nearest Shell station is less than five miles away. From the neon lights of the club to the harsh, buzzing lights of

the office. Don't let the wear show on your face. Just swipe Mabeline instant eraser concealer to erase the night before, wherever that happens to be. Instantly covered dark circles and undereye bags for a brighter, more awake look. This do-it-all formula also contours, corrects, and highlights, all while staying lightweight, crease-resistant, and smooth. It may be the world's greatest eraser. Find your shade of instant eraser concealer at your local retailer. Hello everyone. Welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm your host, Sean Carroll. And among the topics that I think doesn't get enough intellectual respect in the ways that we talk about the world is food.

Food is enormously important, right? I mean, we eat food every day, most of us. We think about it. A tremendous amount of our economy is devoted to growing food, transporting it, cooking it, deciding how to eat it. And food plays in in an intimate way to the history of the world, different countries or different nation states or trying to get resources, which include growing food. Their technological development of a society can be driven by ways to make food better or more interesting or whatever.

Today's guest, Rachel Loudon, is a historian of scientist who became a historian of food because she realized that not only is the science of food very interesting, but the cultural and political and even religious history of food is fascinating. So she wrote a wonderful book. It's a couple years old now, but maybe you don't know about it. It's called cuisine and empire. The idea being that different political groups in the history of the world have been associated with different kinds of cuisines. And we can trace how these cuisines change over time by who invades who, who sends their missionaries to convert who else. And it's important. It matters. Again, we eat the food every day. So thinking about when we eat a certain meat,

meal, oh, I'm using rice or I'm using wheat-based pasta or soybeans because of some cultural history. I hadn't even thought of before. So this is a food-based podcast, but we're not giving any recipes or anything like that. We're talking about food as an element in the greater history of humanity here on Earth. The religious aspects are kind of interesting to me. The war aspects, the political and economic aspects. Food is everywhere. It's not just in our everyday lives. as sort of a something we got to do, it plays an important role. So hope you've already eaten because you might get hungry while we're talking about this stuff. Let's go.

Rachel Loudon, welcome to the Mindscape podcast. I'm delighted to be here. I have to say, here's my opening question for you. When I was reading your book, Cuisine and Empire, I found that it was much better if I read the book after having eaten. Because you're talking about all these wonderful food stuffs and it would always get me hungry if I hadn't eaten yet. Is this an occupational hazard for those who study the history of cuisines? Like, you better start eating before you actually do your work. It's funny you ask that because I have spent the last 20 years fighting the view that if you talk about the history of food,

you're talking about something that is kind of sweet and feminine and full of feasts. And when I talk to publishers about my book, they all said, oh yes, glorious Renaissance, pictures of feasts because this is going to be so lovely. And yes, of course, there's all that. And there is the occupational hazard of thinking about food. But food is part of human life and it's got its downsides as well as its upsides and there's anguish as well as joy mixed up in food. So it's, yes, no moron. And politics and war and religion and all these wonderful things. That's what's great about the book. How about to get us into it, you know, I couldn't think of a better choice than

you made in the book talking about your experience in Hawaii, which is a little bit of a melting pot patchwork quilt of different cuisines coming in at different times. Do you want to tell the audience a little bit about how you think about all those different grains and root vegetables that you discover when you live in Hawaii? Yes. I mean, Hawaii was a strange experience when I first got there because everybody says it's just like California, you know, 2005 miles off the coast of California, and it's not. Not at all.

Because in California, you are still in a culture that is dominantly Western. And in Hawaii, that is not true. The island population is made up of three groups, the Pacific Islanders, who got there, most of them or seven or eight hundred years ago, but have continued to come from the South Pacific. The Anglos, for want to a better word, Americans, British, who have been there for a couple of hundred years. and the Asians who are a very mixed bunch. There are Chinese, Haka and Han, Okinawans and Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, and many others, most of whom came as plantation workers.

Now, what's interesting is that when Hawaii became a state, the plantation workers voted as a block, and they took over the state government. And so now you have a culture where what are still minorities on the mainland are not minorities in Hawaii. And this, from the food point of view, I learned two really important things in Hawaii. One was that you've got these teeny weenie little islands out there miles from anywhere. and everything that people eat has been brought in. They were a desert. You could not have survived in Hawaii.

So the Hawaiians brought everything they needed, their cooking equipment, their plants, their techniques, and the Anglos brought their ovens and their what-have-us, and so did the Asians. So that taught me that the general idea we have, that foods sort of are rooted in place in the terroir, if you want to use the fancy term. And it's a mistake that foods are mobile,

and when people move, food moves. The other thing I learned was that when you have a political change of the kind you had in Hawaii, you have, going along with it, almost invariably, a culinary change. That if you have a new identity as citizens of the state of Hawaii, you have to have a state food,

and you have to distinguish that from other states. And so what happened in Hawaii was that these three groups, yes, semi-deliberately, deliberately created what in Hawaii is called local food. But it's local, not because of the terroir, but because of the cultures. Well, that's exactly what I was inspired to ask by what you just said. I mean, this idea, of course, that when people move in, either colonizing or immigrating, they bring food along with them.

But I'm wondering, is it mostly just because that's what they like to eat and therefore they bring it in, or is it more deliberate as in this is our culture, we need to preserve it or even impose it on where we're going? I think it's the latter. Most people, it's not a fashionable thing to say nowadays. It was once throughout history that you are what you eat. And people still, to a very large extent,

deep down tend to believe that. And it's, yes, so when people move, and I notice it myself, I've moved around the world a fair bit, from England to America, to Hawaii, to Mexico, with lots of stays in other places. And people say, ah, but, you know, when you lived in Mexico, didn't you just eat Mexican all the time? No, no, no, because that's too abrupt to change. I love Mexican food, but I'm not going to just suddenly abandon the accumulated experience of many years to go completely change my lifestyle. Yeah, maybe if it's not quite we are what we eat, but certainly what we choose to eat is a very important part of who we choose to be, right? I mean, I always joke when we've had Thai food last night and it's like, well, we can't have Thai food tonight.

But of course, Thai people have it every night. But there's something different in our expectations that goes into who we are. So let's go all the way back. I mean, cooking by itself is a pretty artificial seeming thing. I know there's like isolated stories of different animal species that cook in some very, very broad sense. But when did cooking start among human beings? Is this something that historians know anything about? That's really in anthropological territory and does a huge amount of work going on about that at the moment.

I think one of the things that anthropologists are gradually realizing is that cooking is not just a matter of heat. First of all, they thought, you know, once you've got the mastery of fire, then you've got cooking. but cooking, I keep looking for a good word. Processing, preparing has at least five different, very different kind of processes going on. There are the thermal changes that you get by the use of fire or ice. There are the mechanical changes by grinding or chopping. There are the chemical changes by soaking in alkali or acid. there are the microbiological changes associated with fermentation and the biological changes,

because although we don't do it now, in the ancient world, people also saw breeding plants as a part of cooking, because as you probably know, most of the plants that we eat today have been dramatically modified by human beings. so that this whole business of plants and animals are just the raw materials of food. They're not food, although people talk about farmers as producing food all the time. They don't. They produce the raw materials. And it's what happens afterwards. These five, well, the breeding of plants doesn't happen afterwards.

But the other four happen afterwards. And usually not just one of them. I mean, you normally chop and heat or ferment and heat or use chemicals. And so that from very, I mean, this makes it terribly difficult to give a date. It's a process that goes along with becoming human as this amazing set of technologies are gradually mastered. And presumably it goes along with, again, I know nothing about this except from skin. giving your book, so it's oversimplified in my head, but there was a transition from being a hunter-gatherer kind of society to being agricultural kind of society. Did we have what we would

today recognize as cooking even back in the hunter-gatherer days? Oh, absolutely. Oh, absolutely. And in fact, I really would like to argue against that periodization, as historians call it, that is so deeply embedded in our culture that it's hunter-gatherer and then an agricultural revolution. I figure you probably would, but I had to set the stage. So, no, I mean, I think the, the, I mean, what agriculture is basically about is either grains in the temperate world or sometimes in the tropical world with rice or roots, taro, cassava, potato. what have you. Particularly the grains, they are incredibly difficult to prepare, cook. You are not going to farm grains until you have learned to cook grains.

So the important transition is a transition from a very, very mixed diet to the mastery of grains, being able to take these teeny hard, well protected by not. nasty, tough husks, little things and turn them into something that humans can actually eat. That was an impressive part of your book where you discuss the grains because they're so important everywhere in what we eat that you really made the case. It's hard to eat grains. Were you telling the story about your father who tried? He was a farmer and he kind of failed to make his own grains into food. Yes. Yes. I mean, you know, he's thought he could just grind them and they had already been thrashed in the combine

harvester. So he didn't have to get the outer parts off. All he had to do was to grind them. And in those days, there were not handy little you tubes that you could see about how to grind a grain. So he was just guessing. He tried with a pestle of mortar. You cannot smash grains into of flour. And so, but they are both ubiquitous and fairly early in the development of cuisine. So what was it that inspired people to work so hard to figure out how to make grains edible? I think, I mean, the inventorying of the Earth's resources that early humans did was unbelievably impressive. I mean, they must have tried everything. And the nice thing about, I mean, I don't know whether they realize this consciously,

but the parts of plants that actually have lots of nutrients because they support the new plants, are either the grains or the roots. And so that means that they are full of nutrients. It means that they are not only, let's just stick to the grains, because the roots are not so important, they tend to be toxic. But the grains can, they have many advantages. They have a very high nutrient to weight value so that you can move them a reasonable distance, like 10 miles without a horse or an ox or water.

They are storable because they are designed by nature to be stored. They can support towns because of these two features. but the one that I think is really important and that the people who the archaeologists and historians who've looked at grains haven't mentioned is they can be turned into almost anything. I mean, we think of grains as making bread or rice or tortillas, but, you know, they also contain the carbohydrates can be turned into sugars and the cheese. Chinese learn to do that very early. We still do it with corn syrup. They can be turned into fats. They can be turned into condiments, as the Chinese do, with their various fermented pasts and soy sauces and things. So, you know, I mean, if you've got grains, you can practically produce the whole of the human diet. Of course, they've been turned into meat, I mean, because

animals eat them. And booze, don't forget booze, right? Oh, oh, well, I shouldn't forget booze. That's very important. No, no, definitely not. So, I mean, they're just amazing. It's not easy to do this, but it is in, you know, you have got something that you can really depend on.

And dependability also, right? I mean, it's sort of reliable in the sense you don't have to go out and hunt for it or even wait for it. You can store it over the season, right? You can eat it in winter if you grew it in summer. Provided the locust don't come and the hailstorm doesn't come and what have you. Yep. We all know that it can be difficult to start an exercise program, but the feeling you get once you've started is a real thrill.

And with Peloton, it's especially easy to have that feeling available in the convenience of your own home. I can tell you from experience that once you get on the bike and start going, the initial reluctance goes away. and it's very exciting, it's very thrilling to follow along with a motivated instructor, amazing music, and endless fitness variety. With epic artist collaborations and instructor curated playlists, Peloton's music experience is unlike any other. Whether you're in the mood for some hip-hop, pop, or country, the Peloton bike has the right music to keep you entertained and motivated all year long.

And there are classes for every level, from beginner programs to Tabata intervals. Peloton meets you at every step in your fitness journey. And with an endless variety of live and on-demand cycling classes, plus live and on-demand strength yoga and stretching classes off the bike, you'll keep coming back for more. So get started on your Peloton journey by going to OnePelaton.com to learn more. That's O-N-E-P-E-E-L-O-T-O-N dot com. And you mentioned the word towns,

so already we see a connection between, you know, the human way of life and the food that they're eating. when you have a town and maybe you have some differentiation in occupations, like not everyone is doing the same thing. There can be farmers and grains are a good target for them. Yes, I mean, you don't find cities in societies that don't eat grains. Obviously, the eating of grains comes way before cities. It comes way before agriculture. But it does allow that.

Interesting. So, yeah, so I wonder how much, I don't know how cities developed either, but I wonder how much was freedom from spending time, hunting, et cetera, once you could farm your grains. Yes, and also freedom to settle in larger groups because you can bring them in. No, I mean, what human cooking does, and this begins, I think, before the grains, even with hunter-gatherers, but it continues with the grains. I mean, this whole business of cooking, broadly understood, externalizes what animals have to do for themselves. Animals have to chew, which we don't even think about,

but it is a very time-consuming business for a chimp to chew a monkey. It takes about five hours. So, you know, we don't spend five hours a day chewing, and we don't count the energy of chew. And digesting is also a very, slow and energy-consuming process for the animals. Well, we do that in the kitchen, and that frees up lots of human energy to do other things.

The downside of it is that some proportion of the human, of humanity has to do the cooking. No, and I mean, that's a very, huge burden. I mean, people talk all the time. If you read history books, they say, oh, you know, agriculture came along and then, you know, everybody had to labor in the fields and it was such hard work. I mean, laboring in the fields, yes, it's hard work. My father was a farmer. I don't deny that. But one reason perhaps I wrote the book was in honor of my mother who did the cooking and nobody paid any attention to that. But that was an enormously, even in industrial

England an enormously time-consuming business if you had seven people to feed and you grew all your own vegetables and so on and so forth. That was a great point in the book because it reminded me of the ideas of extended cognition. I don't know how much you follow people in the study of the mind claiming that what we should count as our mind is not just our brain but also like the pieces of paper we write on and the way that we keep. records and our bodies and so forth are doing cognitive tasks spiders in code knowledge in their spider web patterns and so this is extended metabolism right like the idea of cooking and so forth off sources some digestive purposes to

things that we can do with our hands right right no I hadn't heard about extended cognition but I like that idea and I like the idea of calling it extended metabolism. Yeah. And so you have a wonderful, you know, in the chapters of your book, you talk about the development of cuisines and the major cuisines throughout history. So maybe we can go through some of those. Was the what you call the sacrificial cuisine of barley and wheat, was that the first major

cuisine worldwide? Or is it, do we not even know enough to say something like that? Well, let me just say a word about cuisine because in English, it tends to suggest something very snobby. Unfortunately, we don't have a word in English for a style of cooking and eating. In Spanish, for example, Kossina means both the kitchen and the style of cooking. So I use the word cuisine not to talk about something.

but to talk about a particular style of cooking. And going back to cognition, I think, what tends to hold cuisines together is our ideas, what we're doing with the cuisine. So now we get to sacrificial cuisines. In the ancient world, there are many sacrificial cuisines, but what they have in common is a belief that the gods provided us with food and that in return, that particularly the grains and all the early gods in China or Greece or what have you tend to be grain gods. And in other parts of the world, there are, you know, Demeter and what's the Chinese one?

I'm blocking on it, but never mind. the millet god in China. And that in return, in order to ensure a supply of the basics of food, humans have to feed the gods, which they do by sacrificing to the gods. And the aromas, when the sacrificed goods are cooked, the aromas rise to the gods and feed them. And it's a very kind of practical view of how you try to live in a difficult and dangerous world with those locusts and hailstorms that might destroy your food, that you have to undertake this bargaining position to whatever those powers up there are.

I'm going to admit that I'm forgetting the details of the story, but way back in Canaan Abel in Genesis, didn't one of them sacrifice a lamb and the other some plants and God judged them harshly? I forget which one was judged. I don't remember. No, I mean, whether it's the Bible, whether it's the early literature in China, whether it's Greece, Persia, these kinds of stories about offering the gods, your most precious things, which I'm. are always meat and grains, basically, in return for the gods, hopefully, taking care of you. I mean, that's very interesting because I wouldn't have guessed.

I mean, if you say after the fact that there's a particular religion in which sacrificing to the gods plays a big role, I'm saying, okay, I get that. But the fact that it's universal over very different disconnected cultures is kind of amazing. It was something where very different people said, yeah, this is the way to go. Yeah, I mean, the first, when I'm looking at these early formal cuisines in the very first empires, which is when we first got much written evidence about what's going on, it's very striking that around the globe, not only are they sacrificial cuisines, but they all believe in that different levels of life

have different kinds of food appropriate to them, even different classes of human beings. And that the cooking is part of a whole cosmic process where the power of the heat of the sun and the rays of the moon drive the processes on the earth. and though at a very general level those three principles seem to be very, very widespread. Now, is this just a response, you know, that human cognition, human brains have to the world they're trying to live in and make sense of? Or is there a whole bunch of contact that, you know, everybody did apparently, you know, come out of Africa?

or at least that's the standard story right now. And, you know, at what point we don't know. Right. But okay, but despite the fact that maybe everyone did it, you do sort of put your finger on this particular set of cultures in the Middle East, which you associate with the barley and wheat kinds of cuisine. So what were those folks eating? And how do they think about eating back in those days? Okay.

Well, Plato and Aristotle would have eaten, Barley Banachs, that is they, that stage wheat was still not the predominant grain. It was the secondary one. So they would have ground up barley and eaten it as basically flatbreads on an open fire. They would have eaten essentially a vegetarian diet most of the year. and meat was normally eaten only in association with a sacrifice, so that the big event at the Olympics, if you like a nice story, is not, well, it is the races, but it is also the final ceremony,

which is when 30 oxen are brought in and slaughtered, and I sort of think of the practicalities of this. It takes a certain amount of time to get an animal in and slaughter it and cut it up and then put it on the sacrificial fire, and then everybody feasts on what turns out if you do the arithmetic to be a rather small piece of meat. So the concessions at the stadium are as early as the sports themselves, in other words. I know that even today, the only reason I'll go to a

baseball game is to just have a hot dog and sit outside on a nice day. So some things never change. But you then contrast this with what you identify as a Buddhist kind of cuisine based mostly on rice. And is that, how does that fit in with the idea that I would have that all of East Asia eats rice all the time? Did Buddhism really has some responsibility for bringing rice to China and Japan and Korea? Oh, yes. Millet was the original grain. I mean, you know, millet, that little thing that, you know, goes in bird seed feeders. I've heard of it. I don't eat much. It's not actually a thing. It's a lot of different species that have very tiny grains. And that's what Confucius would have eaten for steamed millet. And, I mean, it's not that Buddha, there was rice in various parts. of South China very early on, but when you get a state beginning to take these new kinds of religions

that begin, say, 500 BC, Buddhism and then Christianity and Manichaeism and later Islam, then this political religious coalition tends to have preferred foods and preferred festivals. Most of them are set up in opposition to these earlier sacrificial cuisines. I mean, they're turning away from the sacrifice and instituting a new kind of ethics and understanding of the world, where no longer do you have to placate the gods, you have a different relation to them.

And in Buddhism, the Buddha, the stories say that he turned away from the killing of animals, that's away from the sacrifice. And so in Buddhism, there's an avoidance of meat. It's not complete, but it's there. And so the cherished foods, instead of being meat, become sugar and butter and rice. And in India, before Buddhism came along, I'm guessing it was mostly Hindu or pre-Hindu. And were they not eating rice? Are they eating something different?

Were they not eating rice? Yeah. They were eating rice and millet. I mean, still the poor in India today, this thing called millet that nobody in America thinks of us human food, but that was incredibly important. It is a grain, and, you know, that's what most people did and many still do eat in India.

So this, I mean, rice has always been, particularly white rice, is a very elite, food. And so when we're talking about Buddhist changing things, we are talking primarily about the ruling classes. Okay. And did that tell me more about that transition in China, because I don't know that much about it. I mean, Confucianism is early and was sort of the established way of thinking about things. Buddhism never became the dominant religion in China, as far as I understand, although it did get quite a foothold. It became pretty much the dominant religion between about,

now please, if you've got listeners who are experts on Buddhism and China, I would need to look in the book and get the exact centuries, but I think between the third and the eighth century, Buddhism becomes very dominant in China. And then there's a reaction back against it, and Taoism and, a Confucianism. There's always been a complicated dance

between those three in China. But the Buddhists in some sense won the culinary battle? They brought their rice in and that stuck with us. They made a huge difference to Chinese cuisine. Yes. I mean,

it's an interesting story because you say, well, how did they do it? You've got Central Asia there in the middle. And the answer is, well, of course, Central Asia was a major route, but also that you don't need vast numbers of people if you can change minds. And what happened was that certain Indian rulers sent people, sent envoys to India to learn this new religion. And they came back and they brought the texts and they brought the ideas.

and they brought, you know, the way of eating. And so it's, yeah, I mean, for a period. And it was a very, very big thing because, you know, for the Chinese red is the color of happiness. It's a very good color. And in Buddhism, red stands for meat and alcohol and things you don't want. And white is the very good color. So, you know, all these things have to be negotiated. It takes a long time. But yes, Buddhism dramatically changes the food of first China and then Japan and Korea.

And it's interesting because we previously hinted at it, and I'm sure we'll get to the colonialism aspect and the empire aspect. But this is not that really. I mean, it's almost like a cultural religious exchange that kind of, sweeps the country in the in the case of China. Did it happen at the common level first or the elite level first and then trickle down? Do we know things like that? I would say at the elite level. I mean, just simply the logistics of learning about Buddhism from thousands of miles away and getting the texts. That's not something that common people can do. So this, yes, I think this is a kind of cultural colonialism. Sometimes, you know, obviously, I don't want to jump ahead as you very meticulously go through my book. But I mean, it's not always gentle either. Either the Persian Empire earlier in the Mediterranean was not a gentle empire. And when the Mongols come into China,

that's not a gentle empire, a gentle colonization either. So it comes in different forms. forms. There's nothing better than the feeling of learning something new, and there's no more fun and easy way to do that than with the Great Courses Plus. The Great Courses Plus is a streaming service with thousands of hours of fascinating content across hundreds of topics. And right now, there's an incredible deal for Mindscape listeners. You get a free trial and 20% off when you sign up for an annual membership at the special URL, The Great Courses Plus slash Mindscape. That's a world of knowledge for less than what most of us. pay on coffee each month. I've done courses with the great courses, like my course on the Higgs boson and beyond. I remember the excitement that we had discovering the Higgs boson. We might be close to that again with new anomalies in particle physics. So this would be a great time to learn about the standard model and the experiments behind it. So go now to the greatcoursesplus.com slash mindscape to get your free trial and listeners will get 20% off the annual membership. That's T-H-E-GreatCourses.

P-L-U-S-D-CATO-S-M-S-Minescape. Well, let's jump ahead. I mean, it's not that far ahead, because the next great cuisine that you study is you've grouped together Islam and the Mongols in an interesting way. I mean, what was specific about their cuisine? Well, I put them together because in,

although Christianity, which is now a huge world religion and was supported by states, comes before Islam chronologically. In fact, it was largely restricted to Western Europe. Most of that time, whereas Islam and other religions of the Middle East explode across Central Asia and down into West Africa and East Africa between the 7th and 11th or 12th centuries. So in that sense, they are the next big event in culinary history. Islam is not a set in Islam

Here you have another different working of this grain meat alcohol trio I hadn't mentioned alcohol so much before but it's important for Islam The preferred foods in Islam are very much meat and they keep a form of a sacrifice They don't entirely get rid of it And they are very big wheat eaters, but of course they tend to avoid alcohol. So that's the kind of set up, and they develop wheat cuisines very dramatically with flatbreads and dishes like that.

And these get transmitted. wonderful things with sugar, which they get from India, and distillation, which is not for alcohol so much as for essences. Their technology of food is really impressive. I mean, maybe it's just too obvious even to mention, but one of the great things about either flatbreads made from wheat or bowls of rice is that they can be the base of some food stuff, right? You can put other things on them, sauces and spices and meats and vegetables, and that seems to be a universal phenomenon. Am I correct in that? Yes, I think so. I mean, yeah. Everyone came up with the idea for the sandwich or the taco or whatever it is.

Yes, yes. I mean, you get your grain, and for most people, grains would have been 80 or 90% of their calorie intake, and then you have something to make the grain go down. which is, you know, a little bit of sauce or something spicy or something salty. And I'm not sure how this fits into your classification of cuisines, but in my very naive picture of it, in Asia and maybe also in Africa, the idea of spices was very, very important, right? And maybe less important than it was in Western Europe at the time. Is that a fair comparison?

Western Europe love spices from the Middle Ages on or even from the Roman period on. I mean, the trouble is that most of the things that we now classify as spices tend to be tropical, so they're difficult to, you can't grow them in Western Europe. They did have, I mean, people say it was bland. There is horseradish and there is mustard. Okay. And if you've ever, and the mustard is not like your. little American yellow jar.

This is hot. The more serious, yes. It's hot, hot, hot. Horse radish. So I think something, you know, some condiment that has a strong either pecan or salty taste or sweet taste, but that's more difficult, is pretty much universal. Okay, good. That does make sense. But, okay.

And then the final pre-modern, if you want cuisine that you focus on, is Christian, I suppose, European, right? And so what made that different from the Islamic and the Buddhist ways of eating? Well, again, they have a different set of preferred foods. I mean, wine is very important and grapes are very important. They use raised bread, not flat bread. Lamb is important. also be it's a meat cuisine lots of fasting in most Christian pre-protestant cuisines fasting almost 50% of the year for most places and something that is shared in

common with the religions in other parts of the world is that it is the religion houses and the religious establishment that is responsible for feeding those who are in great poverty, that that is fairly universal. It's not the state's business. It's the, although the state sponsors the religion, up until, you know, the modern period, the, the, the, religious houses have the responsibility for feeding the poor. So is that a European Christian thing or is that more universal? That's universal. Okay.

And you mentioned the fasting. So what would fasting have meant to Europeans in the Middle Ages? And it's not like, you know, people today take two days of the week maybe and eat fewer calories to lose weight. Oh, no. It's not, it's no meat, no animal products. So like, very much like the Greek. Orthodox Church today. This goes on for 40 days in Lent, in the spring, prior to Easter, and for a number of weeks

before Christmas and for many days, every Friday. So you are eating a vegetarian or a vegan cuisine for 50% of the year. Okay. And then, of course, Europe explodes across the world, right? I mean, they start being good. Then Europe explodes across the world and particularly to the Americas early. I mean, and the Spanish are really, the Spanish and the Portuguese are the really important ones in spreading this kind of Christian cuisine around the world.

And presumably, I mean, more than presumably, it certainly goes both ways in terms of flavors and ingredients being brought back from one's colonies to the homeland. But at the same time, you're saying the sort of style of eating was brought from the imperial power to the colonies? Let's look at two of the Spanish ones, Mexico and the Philippines. Good. Okay. When the Spanish went to Mexico, they just took their entire kitchen. I mean, they did not eat tortillas if they could avoid it.

I mean, the first few years they had to eat tortillas. but they just, they move their cuisine. They're not going to eat chilies and tortillas. When they get to the Philippines, pretty much the same kind of thing. They can't do it quite so forth. This is forcefully there because getting across the Pacific is very difficult. But, you know, they do try to set up a Spanish cuisine in the Philippines. What do they bring back?

There is not, oh, let me get on a high horse. Please. There is not a Colombian exchange in cuisine. There is a Colombian exchange with plants. Columbian exchange is this phrase that I think Alfred Crosby, the historian, set up, to talk about how when Europeans reached the Americas, there was an exchange of plants and animals and diseases across the Atlantic. Doesn't happen with food.

We still, Anglos still have not learned the basic techniques of Mexican cooking. We can't, we don't make corn tortillas by using alkali. We do not basically use dehydrated and rehydrated chilis to, create the basis of our sources. We don't use them for color and flavor and texture. We use them for heat. And that is also true of, say, Eurasia. When Maze goes to Africa and Europe, the techniques for processing it don't go. It's only the plant. Same thing with chilies. The techniques don't go. Just the plant. Interesting. So that is, I think, again, because of the power relations. Right. People don't, you know, we've conquered the Americas. We don't want to eat like them.

Yes. If we can take these plants and make use of them, we will do. Now, in the case of West Africa and Mays, I mean, it's partly that they're the techniques are just not transmitted because there's not much back movement into West Africa. But in Europe, people don't know how to process, didn't know how to process, Maze, the American way. From sauce to dust to nuggets, Diablo-dusted crispy chicken nuggets. No, they don't come in mild. That would make like zero sense with the name. New Diablo-dusted crispy chicken nuggets. at Taco Bell.

At participating U.S. Taco Bell locations for a limited time and while supplies last. Love bread, bake goods and pasta, but not the way they make you feel? What if I told you there are macro-friendly options that don't taste like sawdust and sadness? Satisfying sandwiches, fully loaded bagels, noodles noodles that can stand up to your favorite chunky sauces, all delicious. Craveworthy and smart, each serving of Hero Bread has up to 19 grams of protein and 32 grams of fiber and just zero to five grams net carbs and zero grams sugar. Hero Bread bakes with heart-healthy olive oil and delivers this soft, fluffy, flavorful experience you love. Breakfast burritos, smear-loaded bagels, real mac and cheese.

Hero bread bakes loaves, bagels, and tortillas that don't taste or feel like cardboard. Noodles that don't fall apart in hearty sauces. Plus, limited edition small batch bakes like the 2 grams net carp hero croissant or 1 gram net carb hero cheddar biscuit, handmade in a Sonoma-based French bakery. Shop now on hero.co. Use code iHeart for 10% off. That's hero.co. Per serving, not a low-calorie foods and products contain allulose, see nutrition info on hero.com for sodium and sugar content.

It's very interesting, yeah, the idea that it was not quite an exchange of equal partners, but we did bring ingredients back, they did bring ingredients back to Europe that were ultimately very influential. You talk a lot about potatoes, or at least the potato made a big influence on me. The whole fact that potatoes are not easy to grow, and they needed to feel. figure out what to do with them when they brought them back to Europe? Yes, and people really didn't like them. I mean, it takes 200 years, 300 years for the potato to make it really into European cuisine.

It's in the late 18th and early 19th century when the European population is beginning to explode and rulers are desperate, desperate because starvation is lurking everywhere, famine. And they are forcing people to eat potatoes. They were not welcomed. And really, they have only been welcomed once they get a lot of fat in them. Well, was it more that we cultivated the actual potato, or is that we just learned to douse them in butter or fat or sour cream? First of all, potato had to be changed to a different day.

They come from the southern hemisphere and growing them in the northern hemisphere where it is not easy. So a lot of breeding had to go on. But also, you know, if you're eating 90% white bread, if white, not much, actually they weren't. Most people were eating poorer breads on that, whole meal breads. But if bread is, you know, give us this day, our daily bread is the prayer. This is food. And then you give somebody a boiled potato, which doesn't have any consistency and not much taste. Well, these many of them didn't have much taste.

That's not food. And you make the point that French fries were elite for a long time because they were hard to make. It wasn't until the frozen French fry came on the scene, the 60s and 70s, that they became food of the people. Well, French fries, yes, they were elite. They were invented sometime during the 19th century, and they're very difficult to make. You have to have a big pot of fat, which is very expensive, way out of the resources of most people. And then you have to fry the potatoes once, take them outside, drain them, heat the oil to a slightly higher temperature, fry them again, and then serve them.

So this is taking a poor ingredient and by massive processing, turn it into something that is an elite food, as it was until you say the 70s and 80s when the McCain industry gets going with frozen French, fries where most of the preparation has been done for you. And this is a characteristic of something you've already mentioned, but maybe it's worth driving home, the idea that all the ingredients of the food we eat now, whether it's the vegetables or the grains or even the meats, would have been unrecognizable several centuries ago. We've done so much cultivation and breeding that tomatoes, carrots, beef, whatever, chicken

is just a very different thing than it was back in the day. The prevalent nostalgia about the better food of the past that I enrage about all the time, this is part of it. Most of our foods now are much better. And you've mentioned this in the case of Spain, but this idea of the connection of cuisine and national character or national pride is worth going into in this colonial era in particular. I mean, there was French food, there was British food, they were different. and there is this feeling that we're bringing civilization as well as cuisine to the world. Yes. I'm not sure how much they were actually national as until the end of the 18th or the 19th century.

I think French and English, well, there's a complicated thing in there. high-end, I mean, the French didn't eat what we think of as French food until about the 1930s. The Italians didn't eat what we think of as Italian food until the 1950s. Most of the national cuisines that we now see are very recent, you know, nations are pretty recent inventions. Fair enough, yeah. We're not really around in anything like our sense of the word nation until a hundred, a couple of hundred years ago, and the vast majority of them in the last 50 years.

So that until nations sort of really get established, which is in the 20th century, class is much more important in food than... a nation. So just to illustrate that, people often ask me about, you know, oh, well, why did the French have such great food and the English have such terrible food? And that's to misinterpret it because the elite in the 19th century ate French food in England, in France, in America, in Chile, in Japan, in India, everywhere. That was the food of the international elite.

and insofar as there were national cuisines, they were among the middle or working classes. Is there a simple answer? Probably not very simple, but how did that happen? How did French high cuisine, oat cuisine, become the international food of diplomacy and the elites worldwide? Why French as opposed to English? I think the English sort of seeded. that to the French. You know, we've got the bigger empire. You can do the diplomacy. I don't know.

But certainly, I mean, the kind of thing that Julia Child was teaching, at least until she kind of toned down the stuff, was not what ordinary French people ate. It was what very French people ate. very well to do French people ate. And the French had this massive export industry of sending chefs and butchers and bakers

and everything around the world to prepare this for the courts and the ambassadors and, you know, the newly rich in the industrializing nations. I mean, I'm getting a bit of a theme, maybe I'm overreaching here so you can correct me, but there's, you know, an ongoing set of debates within history about how much things are geographically determined, right? You know, local weather conditions and soil conditions and things like that. But you're giving a lot of credit to ideas in the broadest sense, right? The idea that people just like their food and they're

going to spread it and evangelize for it and it works in some sense. Yes, I mean, I, I, do want, maybe I'm overreacting to the story that about the origin and that I'm now just going to talk about food, not about geographic determinism generally. I think this idea that our food is somehow rooted in the land comes along in the 1930s. and I think it's the French who invented. And I think they have a real problem from, say, the end of the 19th century through the beginning of World War II, they both got, they have a republic. They have to try to say that every, they have to try to create a French cuisine that French people actually eat,

as opposed to one that is just for the courts. They are in trouble with the wine industry. And so they developed this idea of terroir and the regional foods of France coming together to form a national cuisine. I don't think so, but... So, yes, I want to say, go back to the idea that our ideas really do shape what we eat. I mean, obviously there's some kind of, if you're in Iceland,

you're not going to be able to grow rice and you've got to import it. I mean, there is a limit on what raw materials you can have and how far you can move them and how much you're prepared to pay for that. But the way you think about eating, the way you link it to your other beliefs about politics or religion or whatever it happens to be, I think those are more important than... And the idea in Britain as opposed to France was beef and bread, I think, as you make the point. And that carried over here into the United States and we're remarkably beef and bread-based cultures. to this day. Yes. And I think, I mean, what I think the great contribution of Britain to food was, and it's a mixed contribution, but was to say that as, and it was very slow and halting, as we

extend the franchise, as we move towards a democracy, and this is really important in America, when America declares itself a republic instead of a monarchy. If we're going to do this, everybody who is a citizen has to be able to eat the same thing. And that's a powerful idea. It's an amazing idea. And I think you see it all the time in American elections because American presidents, you know, they have to go and eat a hamburger somewhere. And every, I mean, and, you know, Queen Elizabeth is not going to go and stand somewhere and eat a hamburger.

So when people sort of laugh at, you know, McDonald's or something, it's actually, in some ways, a very touching and amazing thing that an entire nation can, in fact, eat something like that. I mean, we're now so rich. It looks silly. It's not. It's really amazing. You make a lot of the idea that how the family has eaten has changed in the last 100 and 200 years. I mean, what would it have been like to have your sort of daily meal in, you know, 200 years ago in the U.S.? Oh, it would have been rough. You wouldn't have had, you'd all have been, if you were an ordinary person, you'd have had a common bowl and you'd have had spoons and you would have been eating some kind of mush out of the world.

the Common Bowl. All the scraps go in. Yes. And it would have been, but I mean, and I have very mixed views about this, but the Republican, and I don't mean capital R now, I mean small R. Tradition in 19th century, America stressed enormously the idea that the family unit was sort of the basis of the Republic. And that work was divided between the mother and the father provided the income. The mother provided the food on the table. And the table was the place where children got both moral education in what it was to be a citizen and physical nutrition in terms of making them strong citizen. and this was, again, a very powerful idea.

I think it had many good aspects. I mean, it also has the terrible aspect that the woman is sort of tied to the kitchen. So if we want to do anything like it today, we have to find some way of changing that part of it. But it was part of it. of creating an American Republican slash democratic slash liberal slash progressive. I know those are all have differences, but all of them are anti-counter to the aristocratic

traditions that had reigned in the rest of the world. But the idea that you could sit down at the family meal and have, you know, some vegetables and some meat and some rolls of bread, or whatever. So that was not here 150 years ago. How much is it a technological change that we're able to store food and transport it and freeze it much easier? I mean, you couldn't have done this without the industrialization of food. And it's why I am so pro the industrialization of food. I mean, if we went back, if we took, if everyone knows the name Alice Waters, I'm sure they do. Alice Waters kind of prescription of, you know, home-cooked, home-grown food.

It's too labor intensive. It's too difficult to do. So it becomes a little bit elitist to imagine that we're going to locally pick all of our stuff and, you know, carefully construct it, but it's just not practical over a huge scale, is what you're saying. I don't think so. I think you've got to bring. You know, as I said, my mother lived in industrialized Britain, and we could buy our bread from a bakery. It was very good bread, actually. But, you know, we did still grow all our own vegetables

and milk and all. And if you want to have green beans in July and cabbage in March, unfortunately, because it's the only thing, You have, you know, you've got to plan that and you've got seven people. It was a full-time job. I mean, it wasn't completely full-time. She also did the law, you know, other things. But she couldn't have done that and held down a regular job.

And if you see women being able to have an equal part in the workplace, then you, they, you have, you've got to have the industrialization of food. If you've got, if you want to include the entire nation, rich, poor and rich, eating hamburgers, you've got to have industrialized food. So, I mean, we could draw a distinction between fast food a McDonald's and convenient food, a la, you know, the frozen food aisle in our supermarket. But, but you're making the case for both of these being, a democratizing influence and even, you know, a sort of liberating influence on half of the population

that they don't need to spend all their time cooking food. Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I mean, I don't think, I mean, you know, we've got some really bad stuff, you know, cheese curls. And I mean, Doritos are supposed to be delicious. I think they're disgusting. But, you know, we've got, look at our supermarkets. I mean, you know, you've got 20 different vegetables in the middle of winter. You've got meat that, you know, almost everybody can afford. You've got lentils and brown rice, if you want lentils and brown rice. I mean, the American supermarket is just an extraordinary.

phenomenon. And so, I mean, I would like to work always to make things better. For example, I would love to get better institutional food in hospitals and prisons and schools and things. And there's no reason why it can't be good. So there's lots of things that are still wrong. Is there a sense in which American cuisine is becoming less focused on the traditional British, beef and bread strategy that we are absorbing influences from outside more, or is that just because

I'm an upper middle class person living in Los Angeles and so I have a completely disordered view of what the world is like? I think, oh, absolutely it's absorbing. I mean, you can see it happening day by day, and again, it's linked to the politics. I mean, when you get all what were called ethnic minorities,

demanding that they have a greater place in society. You can see it happening in cookbooks, in cooking shows, and everything. It's not, and we're introduced, it's interesting because it's, it can't be absolutely everything. So one of the things I'm trying to watch is how new rules and new preferences are being formed out of this, potentially huge amount of stuff we can choose from. And they do have to do with convenience. Right. And with everything being extremely tasty.

And with individual choice pushed to, I think, an almost, to an extreme that I'm not sure is healthy. Why would it not be healthy? say more about that? I don't mean not healthy in the sense of individual health. I mean not healthy for a society because eating together, eating somebody else's food says, because we are what we eat. If I eat your food, I am acknowledging that you are somebody I would like to be like.

I accept. I can accept. I mean, and going back to Hawaii, where I started, I mean, it was absolutely essential to the creation of a civil society in the new state of Hawaii that you and ate other people's food. Right. And now if you try to have a party, you know, one person is a pescatarian and one is a vegan and one... I see. I think it's important for children to learn to eat things.

they don't like sometimes. I'm on your side there. I'm reminded of a remark made by Roy Choi, who is a local, well-known chef. He started the Koji barbecue truck. And he explained that his goal was to sell Korean food in places in Los Angeles where people didn't eat that much Korean food. And so he just decided, it wasn't for culinary reasons, but he decided to serve it in the form of tacos,

because that's what Americans would eat. And the implicit message being that tacos are American, right? Even though, of course, we borrowed even those, but they were a delivery mechanism for this more exotic Korean food, and that worked very, very well. But we definitely seem to be learning to appreciate more Asian food. And I guess what I'm getting at is I both feel what you just said about the hyper-individualization,

making it more difficult to have communal meals. but also an opening up to things beyond hamburgers and chicken and things like that, which I would take to be a good sign. Oh, yes, absolutely. Yeah. You know, it's very exciting. And which bits, because we can't accept all Korean food and all Vietnamese food and all, because it's not too much of it.

Yeah. So which bits? and you can see certain bits coming out, you know, of the different traditions. And do you think, I don't know if that's how much credit is due to Ellis Waters and Chez Panisse and stuff like that, but we now have a whole celebrity chef culture, right? We have the food network. We have these attempts to make very fancy food. Do you think that's a passing fad?

Do you think that's, you know, part of postmodernity? Are we, is this something that we should look forward to? I mean, personally, I find it rather boring. I did once go to one of the top 10 restaurants in the world, and I had a lovely time. And something I think is nice if everyone can do once in a lifetime. But to have to sit there for three hours on a regular basis, admiring what the chef has produced. No, thank you. I think we're going, well, I'd like to see, because this has been a lot about reinventing the cook as artist to give them extra status.

And maybe they've achieved that status now. And you're seeing some of them say, well, you know, we've now got to do sort of socially important things like Jose Andres, who's been feeding people in epidemic. It seems, I mean, we can't have a society full of little individual restaurants run by budding artists. I don't think we can support that number. But if they can turn some of that energy into making, you know, taking the burden off the housewife, making better industrial food or takeout food or not an institution, or takeout or fast food, that would be an incredible gift to society. Well, maybe just to wrap things up then, let's look into the future a little bit.

You know, this has been a long story of the interrelationship between food technology and food politics and food culture. These are all continuing to change, especially on the technology side, right? We have artificial meats, synthetic biology is letting us do new things. Do you think that science and technology as well as politics are going to be dramatically changing how we eat in the years to come? I'm always a bit nervous about projections. I don't, it depends on your time scale. People, I mean, I am old enough now to have seen a dramatic change in my lifetime. But it's not overnight.

It's very hard to change food habits. overnight and it's probably not a good thing either physiologically or psychologically. So I think I would see an evolution and say within a generation or two generations of very large change. But it's not, you know, if artificial meats come on the market, well, they are on the market, you know, it's not going to mean that two years down the road, traditional meat has vanished. I don't think, yeah.

But maybe hand in hand with that, do people spend less time sitting down at family meals these days than they did 50 years ago? I suspect so. Data on this is really hard to get. And, I mean, I'm not committed as the 19th century. American Republicans were two kind of social interaction being primarily at the meal and particularly at the family meal. I mean, there are other, or it doesn't have to be home cooked by mother.

I do think as a society comparing, say, living in Mexico to living in the United States, in a similar kind of socioeconomic environment. One of the things we have lost in the United States is the ability to socialize well and enjoy it and take the time to do it. And I regret that, and I think it would be great if we could move to a sort of, not a slightly more relaxed attitude to spending time with other people whom we like or find it. interesting. So yeah, I think there's room there. I don't know what your opinion is, but I would love to see more care and more attention given to how we interact. No, I actually, yeah, I mean, I can't agree more. The one thing that is clear is that we work too much and we're too busy. and now that we have the convenience of all this food

that we can get any ingredient at any time of the year we want, we should take advantage of that and sit down and enjoy it with each other a little bit more often. Exactly. All right. That's a great place to end. Rachel Loudon, thanks so much for being on the Mindscape podcast. Oh, thank you for having me.