Talk:American cuisine

List

I'm not sure if you actually meant to imply that all the foods on that list were American foods, or rather that they were a staple of the American diet, as many (if not most) are actually foreign foods.

Apple pies, for example, are either English or Dutch in origin (they were mentioned in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales). Chilli con carne is Spanish/Mexican. Fudge, chocolate chip cookies, pumpkin pies and pancakes are all of varied European origin. Even a Thanksgiving dinner is based on a traditional European Christmas dinner.

Of course, being a country of immigrants you may simply have meant to imply that those foods are part of the popular American diet, as opposed to being specifically American cuisine.

• I'd say the list is things that are identified with the United States, not necessarily originating there or being commonly eaten. Wine did not originate in France, but they are commonly associated. Apple pies did not originate in the United States, but a common phrase is "As American as mom and apple pie", and it is considered by the culture of the United States as a very "American food". A food on this list does not imply that it isn't applicable to other cultures and nations, just that these are seen as very "American foods" by the people living in the United States, even if some of them are not common or are regional (such as grits). I have quibbles with some of the items on the list, but I'd say "identified with by the local culture as being part of the national or regional cuisine" would be a good criteria -- one that the majority of the items meet. 69.162.59.13

Focus

Conversion from list to essay format would improve this article. I'd suggest including a description of foods that are native to the Americas and popular in the United States but rare or uncommon elsewhere, such as corn on the cob. I'd like to see subsections on regional styles such as Cajun, Tex-Mex, and Hawaiian. A section on national innovations and their historic context would also be appropriate, such as cocktails and prohibition. Durova 10:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, some basic research would be nice. Originally, for example, the article mentioned that Chop Suey was from China when the truth it that it was invented in San Francisco. You know, the city in California? In the United States? A real list of all the amazing food items that were invented in this country (baked alaska, potato chips, Buffalo wings, lobster newberg, beef on wick... the list goes on and on) plus a list of food that, although originating elsewhere was perfected and improved in the United States (hambergers, pizza, ice cream, and so on) would be a nice start.

Heck, a list of the items created at Delmonico's in New York City when Charles Ranhofer was its executive chef would be a good start.

When I wrote that piece on Chop Suey, I said that it had its origins in China; surely that is the case? Was it not based on a Chinese style of cooking and created by Chinese immigrants? As such, I think it belongs alongside things like hamburgers and pizza, which in their US versions more or less dissimilar to the European things from which they were derived. Neale Monks 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

My Hamburger picture show a French hamburger. The packaging from a French fast-food chain of restaurants is easily identifiable (at least for French people). Can someo US Wikipedian take is digicam to a fast-food restaurant to shoot a "real American burger" ? ;-) Ericd 21:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a fast-food restaurant would be count in most American's minds as a "real American burger". Fast food (at least in the United States) is seen as low-brow and cheap fare, the lowest form of the food. 69.162.59.13

I agree. It was rather obvious that this hamburger is the "Giant" from the Quick fast-food outlet which is Franco-Belgian. I feel that a more "American" burger picture should be put.

NPOV and errors

I'm glad others are elaborating this article. However, I worry about uses of words like "perfected" when describing how a dish changes over time. Dishes may change, but there's no perfection in cooking, any more than any art.

Also, to say "most American Cuisine is rustic rather than elaborate (when compared to French Cuisine, for example" is simply silly; French cuisine is famous for the regional, rustic styles. Normandy style, Provencal style, etc. To imply that all French cooking is haute cuisine is highly misleading. That would be like saying most Americans eat the the same dishes as those served in the Drake and the Waldorf Astoria. There is fancy American cooking, and there is fancy French cooking.

While there certainly are uniquely American foods, we need to be careful about identifying them. Chowder, for example, is French (the word is derived from the French for "hot" and similar dishes exist in Brittany even today. While the name "chowder" may be American English, the dish itself certainly has far older roots [1]. Likewise, candy bars evolved independenly all around the world in different guises. From comfits in Tudor England to halva in the Mid East and halwa in India, the basic portable, sugary snack is pretty well ubiquitous. Certain brands and flavours may be very American, but there are unique French and British and other candies. (The very word candy comes from an Ancient Indian - Sanskrit - word "khaṇḍa", meaning chunks of sugar.)

Steering a neutral point of view between the the historically accurate and the pejorative criticism is something which needs to be done. Outside of the US, the perception of American food is highly stereotyped, in perhaps the same way as Americans view French or British cooking. Why is this? Why is American cuisine not seen as one of the world's great cuisines in the same way as (broadly) French, Indian, or Chinese?

Cheers,

Neale

Neale Monks 20:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This Entire Article is an Oxymoron

'America' and 'Cuisine' are by definition not mutually compatable terms. This article is therefore superfluous. This unsigned comment by 140.233.210.124, 18 October 2006

Of course American cuisine exists: look how many cookbooks there are covering the subject, and how many restaurants around the world purport to sell the stuff. Whether it's a cuisine as sophisticated, technically demanding, or simply as tasty, as some of the others are all good questions for chefs and critics to discuss. But to deny the value of this article out of hand is a bit extreme. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Problems with defining American cuisine section, you'll see this point is made. Apple pies are indeed originally from Europe. But within the American idiom, apple pies are perceived as being a very American food. This is obviously erroenous from the purely historical perspective, but from a cultural one it's important, because Americans see apple pies as being traditional. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

thx to Ans. me,

SO? Argentinian cuisine is mostly french, italian, spanish and german too. But we have adopted many of them and the ones consumed in the same way are still Argentinian food even when is also french, italian or whatever.

American have a cuisine! what about peanut butter, popcorn, hamburgers???? and the rest of the foods adopted from other countries, you don't eat Italian pizza in the same way that italian-american ancestors in Italy as we don't eat it in the same way either. {{unsigned|24.232.226.252|20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)}

Pizza is an italian thing no matter how you eat it or make it, apple pie is a dutch/english thing, american cuisine its made up of other countries cousine.-Rafax 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Most cuisine around the world is evolved from some other country's cuisine. Pizza in the United States has evolved sufficiently from its Italian origins to constitute a cuisine of its own.---- RLent (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think some people are mixing up describing American cuisine with authentic American cuisine unique to the United States. No-one in their right mind would say Americans invented hamburgers, pizza, macaroni and cheese, French (Belgian!) fries, apple pie, candy bars, chowder, etc. Cookbooks with those dishes pre-date the founding of the United States, end of story. It's perfectly obvious that generations of immigrants brought those dishes with them to the US, changing them to small or large degrees depending on various factors. But that's worth exploring in this article: how and why these changes were made, and in what ways (if any) an Italian pizza and an American pizza (for example) differ. If you go to an American book store, you'll find lots of "American cookbooks" filled with recipes that Americans often think are uniquely theirs; this article should explore that, and show how the roots of much of what Americans view as "their" cooking in fact connects them with the ancestors from England, Germany, Mexico, China, West Africa, etc. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be about what US actually eats? There must be plenty of statistics available - I suspect that a list of what US actually consumes would have little resemblance to this article. Fourtildas 06:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apple pie is NOT derived from a European food, it IS a European food. In the Canterbury Tales apple pie is mentioned, and I doubt Chaucer was American. Ninington 10:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Rename of Article to Regional Cuisines of the United States

This article is almost all POV or on regional cookery in the United States. It does not define one cuisine of the United State which the title of this article denotes. Cuisine of the United States denotes a National Cuisine. The article should be retitled Regional Cuisines of the United States which most of this article fits into and the article is a redirect from. Christopher Tanner, CCC 05:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

There is no "one" United States cuisine any more than there is "one" French cuisine or "one" Chinese cuisine. The best this article can do is explain where American cooking derives its inspiration from, and to educate people to the fact many supposedly American foods, like apple pie and pizza, have their origins in whole or in part elsewhere. This in itself justifies the article. As for where the *regional* cuisines come from, I agree, those are best handled in their own articles. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Odd that the word "vegetable" does not show up in this article anywhere, much less "vegetarian"... If I'm not mistaken, Americans are far more likely to be vegetarians than nearly any other national people. Surely this deserves some mention.

While that's an interesting point... surely Americans are far less likely to be vegetarians than, say, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jains. Even subjectively, as a Brit who's lived in the Midwest United States, I find it much easier to eat and buy vegetarian foods here in the UK than in the US where the availability and range of such foods seemed much more limited. Perhaps different on the Coasts. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems like Eurotrash snobbies p*ssing on American food

<EOM> --203.117.92.2 03:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research issues

This article has always suffered from a large amount of original research and will for sometime until secondary resources are written on the topic which sadly there are pretty much none because it is such a controversial topic. I have removed much of the POV wording and added tags for needed citations to many of the comments on this article and I re headed the article to fit along the conventions of some of the better cuisine articles on Wikipedia, namely French cuisine and Italian cuisine. Please refrain fro writing new POV material in the article without references as they are against Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:No original research.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 14:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic and Immigrant Influences

I added in a section on ethnic and immigrant influences. While this seems to be mentioned "between the lines" of the text of the original article, I thought that it needed to be fleshed out more and also made to cross reference with what is happening on other wikipedia topics. I don't think you can truly understand American cusine without understanding the ethnic, race, immigrant and socially constructed history of the nation. What is more, I think this add a lot more "flavor" to the article, instead of assuming that American cuisine is nothing more than "mass culture" dervived from the colonial states and national expansion, etc. I think that the links to every hyphenated cuisine, such as Italian-American cuisine, Mexican-American cuisine, American Chinese cuisine and even Creole and Soul Food, contribute to this idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calitalia (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I see that the following comment was already added by someone: "This section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations." While I am certainly willing to oblige, I am somewhat confused. This is mostly crossreferencing other wikipedia topics at this momment, of which you will see several sources and citations on those pages. All the same, if you have some suggestions where you would like clarity or support, then please give feedback, before you go and edit. I will scratch my head in the meantime and do the best I can. Calitalia (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)calitalia

Even if the information is taken from other articles, you need to cite the information properly from the sources that their information originally came from much in the same manner the rest of the history of the national cuisine has been cited. Additionally this "new" section is very listy, has quite a bit of point-of-view, and doesn't flow with the rest of the article as it seems to argue against the the colonial period having any influence which is not true at all. The statements on "immigrant" influence is honestly irrelevant as well because all of the influence on cuisine outside of the indigenous Native American population is in fact immigrant in nature.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Response against "Nativist" interpretation; “Where do we go from here?”

I read Chef Tanner's comments above (5 FEB 2008) and on a personal message (talk); whereas, some of it sounds reasonable, but some of it seems defensive, if not emotional.

Chef, I am guessing that you have put a lot of work on this and you don't appreciate others "messing" with your ideas or point of view. If that's the case, I sympathize with your toil, but at the same time I cannot whole heartedly agree with you. Certainly, I can work to provide more citations, as I am sure others would appreciate that, too. Although I do not think you can contest, nor ignore, the scores of wikipedia topics which are mentioned in this section and as well as on other wikipedia pages; and of which are either "verifiable" or "not"; but, nonetheless, they reflect and constitute so many contributions and so many people therein that you simply cannot dismiss them as being "not relevant."

I cannot ultimately confirm your actual intentions, but I do have questions which I think should be asked and discussed. I am not just responding to your recent critique, but about the entire article to which I have not edited, but only inserted a “new” section. For one small contribution, I am surprised that I got such a reaction. Anyway, Here are some of my concerns:

I don't mind anyone working on the articles in which I have contributed. This is Wikipedia, that is the manner in which the "project" expands. All editors who work with me know that I do not take "ownership" of any article. I also did not state that the information is not relevent, I stated it is out of context with the rest of the article, the information belongs properly in line with the historical portion of the "national cuisine" w/o POV, cited properly.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean when you say "out of context" with the rest of the article? You again seem to be suggesting the arguement of a "main" "nativist" culture and what would be a "sub-culture" of ethnic minorities, immigrants and other influences. The reason to make a new section unto itself is not just to place the idea on equal par with the "original 13 colonies," or the "regional influences" and so on; but, also because the way that the article is currently written it makes it very difficult to introduce more than one idea into the same paragraph or same section. To me, this article was not very "encyclopedic" when I found it and nor is currently. It reads too much like an essay. It starts with the colonial idea and moves outward from century to century with too cumbersome an approach and too much with a seeming "one" thesis. This thesis of "nativist" idea is now riddled throughout the entire article, despite that you say that it is "sourced and referenced." Its referenced too much in the same direction. As I too have written thesis work, I have also been instructed in earlier years to have "diverse" sources, boh in point of view and in type of media. However, this is neither a "thesis," nor an essay and the writing format and style should change to be more accessable, flexable, digestable and as well as be broken down to more succinct paragraphs and sections with specific, identifiable factors in each.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC) calitalia

• You claim that "this 'new' section is very listy," but, you ignore the fact that other sections in this article are in fact doing just the same. For instance there is currently section three, which is indeed only a link to "Common dishes found on a regional level" and which then that takes the reader to a page that is in fact a nothing more than avery long list of nothing more than link after link topics. Don’t get me wrong, as this is not a terrible problem for me; but, as case in point, let's not be hypocritical. Also, the section called “Notable American chefs" is also a list, although in seeming paragraphed form. However, this “chef” section does not nearly seem to reflect the ethnic, cultural and stylistic diversity that is neither today’s America, nor its cuisine. I am sorry, but as a well traveled anthropologist, chef, and foodservice entrepreneur myself, I know that there is an entire world out there other than New England Cuisine and French Haute cuisine or East Coast cuisine.

Those sections you refer to are in fact lists on another page and are intended to be lists, I imagine you are new to Wikipedia from glancing at your user page. There are appropriate places for lists and the main article is not that place. The section with notable American chefs has been there for sometime and needs to be incorporated into the time frame as well or removed to its own "list" article. IF you read [[French cuisine] or Italian cuisine you will see and example where chefs are incorporated into the history.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with this point, but let me play the devils' advocate. Why not have the "main" article be the list and the supporting articles thereunder as being the more specific and textual; hence, the opposite of what you are suggeting. This is what I mean by alternate point of view and imagination. Also, sometimes listing inside a history that is in paragraph form is good, sometimes it is not. I can only imagine that if we surely listed every chef of diverse origin and style, which I suggested in the above, then it could actually become quite long-winded and discourage readers. I believe this is why we use lists and tables; but also because of diverse presentation, interest and point of view. Your point of view is not just text, but the context and the media that you are using. (Yes, I studied sociology and writing too). Finally, I am not new to wikipedia and don't assume anything about me or my online identity. Its my choice to be anonymous, ironically so as not to have assumptions made about me. 69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• You claim that this “new” section has "quite a bit of point-of-view." I cannot agree AND disagree with you more. It’s not just, as you say, that the section "seems to argue against the colonial period having any influence which is not true at all." This original article, prior to this "new section" was very biased towards what I call 'nativist history and cuisine. I am not arguing against British-Colonial influences on the national cuisine, but you seem to be ignoring the entire other world that is outside of that. What is more, the text of the rest of the article was left in tact, only inserting the new section. So, how dare you dismiss the majority of Americans who are in fact from immigrant experience and refer to them as being nothing more than a "point of view" and an “irrelevant” one at that? That is outrageous, as these people and their experience are a true fact of American life? I have yet to even include more recent “immigrant” or ethnic groups to the American scene. But, with the sound of your tone, I guess that could be contested, too.

As I stated above, I was not stating the ethnic influence is irrelevant, it just belongs in the proper time line of the historical section of the article. The defensive tone was not taken by me, and it is necessary for you to take it either.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See my commments above; but, what is more, there is no real "timeline" for ethnic or immigrant influence in America, other than what I already outlined in the new section. Its conceptual but somewhat elusive at the same time, because it is an ongoing phenomenon from so many different angles through the expanse of time with various emphasis in that continuum. Who are you or anybody else to say where and when and how to interject this influence. Certainly you can try, where it seems obvious and appropriate, but again this can be quite burdensome and a slippery slope to climb.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• You make only tangential references to what you seem to think is competing with the "main" culture of the United States. As for the other “point of view,” you have not worked very hard at including and sourcing any current text into the article. In case ou have not realized, the definition of source is not just a noun, but a verb! So, I suggest you put some real meaning into the text, context and very language of this article. That is the true, unbiased ethic of writing: to state alternate points of view and not some fanciful illusion of it.

Wikipedia does not allow primary research in its articles, so the information (the only section I have worked on so far is the historical portion of the national cuisine, so don't mistake any of the rest of the article as my work) I have added has been properly sourced, originally in Chicago format, but changed to fit Wikipedia's format.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as being "primary research." All work is work in progress, as the debate and defense never ends. This is the nature of discourse and the very meaning of "thesis." Its not static. Also, I have not assume all this is your writing, but if you are going to defend all its point of view, than that too is your own. Either you defend it, or you argue against it. Indifference argues in favor of the status quo. Myself, I think there needs to be changes.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• This entire discussion is similar to Martin Luther King's question and point of view to our national culture and history, "Where do we go from here?" Either you include diversity, or you have false consciousness. In my "point of view," your "nativist" approach is what is actually incredibly biased.

That is an interesting argument, but the information which I have researched comes from multiple historians and anthropologists.

See my previous response. Being an anthropologist, historian or whatever is not enough. Quoting sources is not enough. I can quote any source to make any point. Any idiot, not necessarily you Chef, can do that. The objective of a good reader or writer is to take notice of diverse points of view and "source" (from the verb) different points of view. For example, I would hope that in your own thesis work, you use not only wikipedia, but other competing media. We call this "analysis." My brother does this for a living in the financial world. I assure you that if he did not do his "analysis," then his employer would lose lots of money and he would be surely fired from his job. For instance, when your customers are dining in your restaurant, they don't only look at what is on their plate, but on other peoples' plates and what they get at other restaurants in the "perceived value." If we cannot address this problem, then I think wikipedia has some serious issues of credibility.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• Even if, as you next say, it "doesn't flow with the rest of the article," then maybe you need to allow other people to contribute their point of view, as well as assist them in their voice and their point of view and not be so controlling and reactionary in your own stance. Most wikipedia articles include more than one voice, all drawn in consensus. This takes cooperation. Why should this page be different, especially on such an important, main and far reaching topic as “Cuisine of the United States? This is a cuisine of the people and by the people… not your own seperate cuisine in your own exclusive words.

Read my other comments, you missed my point.

Ibid. feel the same.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• What I mean, to take it more lightly, is as if to ask: what do you expect from a ‘new’ contribution?

Every sentence, paragraph, section and page has to start somewhere and then evolve. This page is also part of several series on cuisine, culture, history and so on. I would suggest trying to be open and supportive, versus closed and dejecting. Maybe we can expand this project that way. {Somehow, this paragraph was missing]69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• Finally, I really do not want to assume the intention of your comments too much, but I hope you do not truly mean what it sounds like when you claim that "the statements on 'immigrant' influence is honestly irrelevant as well because all of the influence on cuisine outside of the indigenous Native American population is in fact immigrant in nature." If I took this statement entirely and literally to task, that would mean that this entire article has no purpose for existence, other than to talk about indigenous Native Americans. It’s always been my understanding, since the time I lived in New York City and looked at its multicultural diversity and out to Ellis Island and the Statue of liberty, that it is in fact a nation of immigrants and, of that, from quite diverse ethnicity. You cannot hold back the flow of history, the interconnectedness of the world’s peoples and their cultures. We are all connected here in America, but also in histories and stories that are much more profound.

You took my comments in the wrong context, but NYC is certainly not indicative of a cuisine of the entire country, but I will not argue its importance as obviously that is where Italians, Irish, Polish, Russians and other ethnicities have come into the country and eventually made their contributions to the country. One can not argue the importance of Italian cuisine to the United States, again following precedence of other "GA" level articles in Wikipedia, it should follow the historical context of the article. To have an entirely separate section would mean that each country would need a separate section for immigrant influence. For instance in Italy we would have to make a separate section stating the Germanic influence to the north, and arabic influence to the south, etc. but if you read the [[Italian cuisine}} article, they are written into the time-line so that the information makes sense to a reader go through the article. I hope that made sense, if not I can clarify my meaning. --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing my point now that I have clarified in the above. So, why not have a brief section as I have introduced. Surely, I am not against changing aspects of the new section. I never said that. But I think its better than what you are suggesting. Its impossible, nearly I should say, to follow through with such an idea as you suggest. But the current sections of the rest of the article are also failing. How else can you evolve, unless you allow yourself to be more liberal in accepting the current conditions and then try to move forward with the realizations. This entire article is still in "stater" status by the designation of the wiki-editors. So, I don't really get your point.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• I hope you are not suggesting two Americas on two different pages (or more); as for example, one of "nativist" origin and another for all the other "immigrants." How should we divide this up, Chef? This sounds like "Gangs of New York" to me. It’s peculiar to me, because I am from crossed American heritage: one part from New York State and the other from California. Yet, you want to cut my body and soul in two, toss me to the mad dogs and call me irrelevant! What have I ever done to you? Don’t you realize that the wikipedia guidelines also call for the initiative to cross-reference and prevent over duplication of topics. This means you have to be inclusive, but also prudent.

• I know that not all of this country was founded in the original 13 colonies! Chef, my mother was born not too far from where you are currently working in the Catskills of New York, but she came out to where my father's family is in California. I went to college in the neighborhood where our fine U.S. Constitutional fathers found convention in New York City, and I am glad to be part of that heritage. But, I know that certainly not all of my culture, like the culture of our nation, its state laws and very regional experience is in fact from that same "point of view". Can you explain that? I do realize that some East coasters can often forget the history of the Western States; that is, if they ever learned it at all. Do you realize how long ago the Spanish were in the West, as well as what the influence of that civilization was, as well as continues to be on our modern day country?

• I hope that I don’t sound angry or resentful, but this is not just a tangent history to your "colonial cuisine" influence." It is not just a passage here and there in your current text of the article. I am sorry, but the real fact of the matter is that the majority of states and territories in our current union were NEVER originated by Colonial Britain; as they were either part of the Great Expansion or originally part of an altogether different empire or an altogether different territory of a different trading companies and trading nation. Every state in this union approaches history from a "different point of view," which is the miracle of this country and the very basis of its democratic social construct. You may not be able to tell every detail, but you yet to even begin the basic concepts. I think I have helped provide part of the outline, if not basis, to where you I think we should go.

• And that leads me to the next point, which is that the section of "regional cuisine" in this article is sadly non-sufficient. Like I just said, the entire United States is not just made up of the "New England States," but as it stands now, the current section would have us believe that falsehood. Bizarre as it may seem, much of the history of this country was actually labored by so-called immigrants long before there were ever even boarders and a federal union of the 50 states. If you see the history of Italian-Americans, Portuguese-Americans and Spanish-Americans, for instance; then, perhaps, you will see that all these people share a common heritage from the diasporas of Europe to ALL the Americas. Their original point of view was actually formed by people other than the British, like Amerigo Vespuci, Christopher Columbus and even the long lost friend of our constitutional father Thomas Jefferson: Filippo Mazzei

This section just hasn't been worked on yet, it is still an old portion of the article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know you pointed that out. But, its hypocritical of you to be so judgemental of me and liberal to the rest of the article. Are you really for the status quo or do you think this article needs some overhaul? I am not suggesting overhwhelming, sudden change; but, I do think we should get under way with some purposeful and ardent editing. 69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

• You might learn something from Mazzei. He lived nearby Jefferson and helped theorize our very constitution, as well as provided agricultural, gastronomical and culinary contributions to the nation before its very founding. He was an Italian “immigrant,” and as much as he was an Italian, he was also an early “American,” before the word was even coined as such. This might change your idea about social constructs and human identity. Mazzei not only conceptualized it, but made it your reality more than some 200 years ago. Why discredit him? I am like Mazzei and I hope you are too.

Please don't take this writng as an attack, but as a serious and passionate dialog (if not debate) on what I think are some very important subjects.69.109.221.76 (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

You missed the part where I said the article is certainly not finished. I don't disagree that information about "ethnic" immigrants is important, however it belongs in a proper context of history, not in its own section. This goes along with the conventions of the other cuisine articles which are at a "GA" level. You have stated that the colonial information is written pov, but it is not, it is written from well-known respected authors on the subject from a neutral pov. The information you have added should follow along the same level. As you say you are a "traveled anthropologist" then it would be great to see you use that skill to properly source the information and place it into the historical portion of the article where your expertise fits well. Having another person who studies the anthropology of food on Wikipedia is indeed a good asset.

I have already responded to all this in my above cross-dialog.69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

I myself concern myself with sociology in a historical context with all of my research. My thesis is actually being written on identifying a national cuisine of the United States and that work has kept me from adding anything new recently to this article and in fact you inclusion of ethnic influence is an important part of my research, but as I stated it fits in a time-line. One can not argue against this influence because these ethnic cuisines have become part of our commercial chain restaurants like Macaroni Grill, Pizza Hut, Olive Garden, Taco Bell, which many have now moved outside of our borders and as such are recognized as American cuisine contributions, not from their origins as they have been adapted to the heavy protein and starch influenced diet of the United States, this influence dates back from the Puritanical influence from the Colonial era "meat and potatoes diet" because as you probably know much of Italian cuisine before the immigrants came to the US was more vegetable based but became meat based with the abundance of cheap meat supported by the American culture.

Interesting, but Italian-American cuisine in this country is much more than what you mentioned. I am Italian-American and have also worked in Italian kitchens in Italy. My family has been in the food industry for generations from different parts of Italy to the United States. Some of my heritage is in the American beef industry, but also its pasta, olive oil, wine, food distribution, foodservice and so on. So, I am well aware of this. This onlyh contributes to my sentiment that this article is extremely biased, not just in its point of view, but in its format and style. I am a sophisticated multi-faceted person, not a mass-cultured stereotype and not a footnote or side story. It is very upseting to have people assume things about any aspect of identity or culture, either as an American or as an Italian. There is not just diversity from outside myself, but within my own identity. That I feel is the true awareness and self-realization. That is the true story of America, its history and culture. Because, aren't we all like this? 69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

So in conclusion, I was not arguing at all for this information to not be included, I just would rather see it place in the proper place in the article as I am sure other would agree, with proper citations and written in a verbal prose that does not include lists, but is written in a way that "reads" in a fluid manner.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but as said, there is "no proper place" per se. To further my point more poetically, let me borrow the lyrics of Annie Lenox and Aretha Franklin, and then consider these "fluid" words:

"Now, there was a time/ when they used to say/ that behind ev'ry great man/ there had to be a great woman./ But oh, in these times of change,/ you know that it's no longer true./ So we're comin' out of the kitchen,/ 'cause there's something we forgot to say to you." (lyrics "Sisters are doin' it for themselves")

I think I have made my point on the rest. I hope to oblige, as well as be obliged in return. 69.109.221.76 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)calitaia

Quite honestly I don't have the time to go through this entire conversation to reply on a whole, I think you have taken my comments way to personally, especially with stating I am hyper critical of your work. If you look back into the history of the article, myself and other editors have removed much of the old article which was unreferenced and POV and updated it to its current state. The other sections were only left as they had not been "fixed" yet. I only wish you would place this ethnic information in the time-line portion to the article, which can be found from references, this I know because I have numerous texts with these topics of ethnic influence, as I stated I am extremely busy right now and do not have the time to add them right now. As for the early Spanish influence, I will agree with you again that there is obvious influence, but it can still go into a time-line, placed in the colonial section as obviously the Spanish were colonists as well, just on the other side of the country. I'm disappointed that you don't seem to agree with the time-line direction of the cuisine history, so all I can ask is that you properly source your information and try to make the section read individual then, not as an essay that comments on the earlier sections. Also just as a note, my father was born in Ireland from an Irish father and Polish mother and my mother in Germany from a German father and French mother, so do not have a "bias".--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, please take a couple minutes to fix the red links. Many of the links you added have articles, the articles exist under other names and it would make their addition more useful to a reader.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. It came to realization later. I will try to get on it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calitalia (talk • contribs) 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Highlighting in Bold & Paragraphing

While trying to re-analyze the article, I found it difficult and not very user-friendly. After some toil, I figured out some patterns. I therefore created "bold type" leaders into certain paragraphs, as well as use of some sub-paragraph bullet points. I think it makes the article read much easier, as well as more evident as to how it actually functions. Before that, many of the paragraphs and sentences just ran together in a hodgepodge. For example, paragraphs listing meats, vegetable, fruits, seafood, etc.-- as well as certain cooking practices-- were all unrecognizable in a long string of sentences. Nor could you tell paragraph from others, for that matter, as they seem to run on off the topic sometimes and at too long of a lenghth. They lost focus or clear purpose. Anyway, I am hoping this will also allow analysis for furher development and expansion. You should be able to easily read to see what is there and what can be added and in what context and what section of thought and so on.Calitalia (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)calitalia

The bolding is not something normally done on a Wikipedia article, it makes the article a little difficult to read as the bolding is very distracting in my opinion. Perhaps we can just break these lists of ingredients, which I agree are large, into sections. If you look at other articles, the bolding is not part fo Wikipedia articles conventions, if you could please remove them and I will fix the listing. I think adding proper content is more important than this issue right now.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your own style is a compromise towards a clearer format; but, of course, I like my own proposal better, if not something more towards that direction. I realize that some of what I did is not necessarily consistent with other like articles, but I weighed that against other problems and decided otherwise. For instance, in the first section under "Pre-1492' it is now not evident that this deals entirely with Native Americans and their cuisine. We simply have headers that say "Common ingredients" and "Cooking Methods." From there, we go into "Colonial Period" where the style of header is mildly different and not easy to discern from other sections unto its basis. Finally, we get into the same problems again, as we go forward from paragraph to paragraph without apparent discernment to its flow into "Southern Colony Variations." Much of this part of the article under "National Cuisine, up to 20th century - 21st century, is actually listing key ingredients and resources available to colonists. But, its hard to determine those items from one another, let alone from the other conceptual ideas that make the cuisine and lifestyle; that is, when they are stringed together as such. Anyway, I am willing to compromise myself, but I do think it can be still clearer than as it stands. My own way also included key identifiers at the start of many sentences that allowed readers to zoom in and out very quickly for the information that they want, without having to read cumbersome lists that go on and on and on. Its always been my experience, even outside wikipedia, that when you have long lists, in whatever style of writing (i.e., business, social research, categorization, etc.), then you break it off into paragraphs with headers and leads. Most people I know don't want to have to read though lengthy listed material to find what they want and need, as it can be very annoying. Plus, to the reader that is looking for more conceptual ideas, versus categorical items, it makes the article look as if its bloated with lots of fillers and so on, versus real content. I think that is partly true here. Having studied Anthropology, I feel that its not enough to list items of ingredients and resources, as much as it significant to explain or describe the nuances of how we use these ingredients and tools and with what care or regard we have for them. For instance, if I give an apple and orange to an individual of one culture, versus to a person of another, the outcome of what they do with those ingredients is truly what signifies their culture. Its not just what they have or have not in their basket, nor what they disdain.Calitalia (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

In reference to "For instance, if I give an apple and orange to an individual of one culture, versus to a person of another, the outcome of what they do with those ingredients is truly what signifies their culture," that is why there is a section on cooking techniques. This is going to continuously go in circles, could you at least start by referencing your own work, before criticizing the rest. BTW, I have studied anthropology as well, for my masters degree directed at food. I think there is just a lose of what I am trying to explain to you and I have way too much going to get frustrated with this article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Ethnic" influence

I was asked by Christopher to comment the discussion here, and my recommendation is that the useful aspects of "Ethnic and immigrant influence" be integrated with the section which I have renamed "History" and "Regional cuisines". How, when and where a cuisine has been influenced by outside forces is certainly good information in a cuisine article, but I don't think having a dedicated section for that purpose is a good idea. The entire notion is also kinda plagued by the artificial and completely gratuitous division of "ethnic" and "immigrant" culture. "Ethnic" in an encyclopedic sense refers to cultures and societies of any kind, not just "noble savages" (the huge variety of peoples that are defined as Native American) and various creole groups (Latin Americans and the descendants of imported African slaves).

Without going too much into the entangled discussion above, I'd like to stress that the modus operandi defined by the Wikipedia community is pretty clear on how to write articles: Reliable sources are required when explaining contentious, controversial or complicated facts. If one follows these guidelines it's rather difficult to "quote any source to make any point". I would also like to express my strong disbelief in the general statements about how the chronology of influences on American cuisine (ei an aspect of American culture) has been lost in the mists of time. This discussion should be about the results of research in cultural history and the stance of scholars, not long-winded debates about the ethnic origins of individual Wikipedians or personal opinions about frustration with cultural hegemony.

In short, more fact discussion and fewer statements of principles, please.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "The entire notion is also kinda plagued by the artificial and completely gratuitous division of 'ethnic' and 'immigrant" culture," is totally uneducated and seems to ignore certain history and trends in this country. If you see the recent paragraph and quote about Chinese, Italian and Mexican food being the three big "ethnic cuisines" in the united states, then you might get my point. Ethnic and immigrant influences have always been an influence in this country. There is lots of information out there just like this that can be quoted. Secondly, I don't know what you mean when you say "I would also like to express my strong disbelief in the general statements about how the chronology of influences on American cuisine (ei an aspect of American culture) has been lost in the mists of time. " This sentence does not make sense to me. Please explain. Lastly, I don't know how you came up with your idea of "ethnicity' and your reference to "noble savages." What are you talking about?? Ethnicity and immigration are regular anthropological terms, having nothing to do with such labels. Ethnic cuisine is also a very common term used within the foodservice industry, and there are many more than what is named here. Of those, many of these ethnic cuisines are becoming very popular in American cuisine and yet have even to be addressed in this article. Calitalia (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

The comment about the "mists of time" is a retort to this comment (made by you under an IP-account):

...there is no real "timeline" for ethnic or immigrant influence in America, other than what I already outlined in the new section. Its conceptual but somewhat elusive at the same time, because it is an ongoing phenomenon from so many different angles through the expanse of time with various emphasis in that continuum. Who are you or anybody else to say where and when and how to interject this influence. Certainly you can try, where it seems obvious and appropriate, but again this can be quite burdensome and a slippery slope to climb.'

Yes, well many immigrant and ethnic groups have been here, many of which originally in very small number and later such groups surpassed their own numbers within the Great Transatlantic Migration. For instance, a few Italian and Chinese Americans were already here or had influence, but such numbers from those two groups were far greater after the turn of the last century. What's more, in today's world, its not just Italian-Americans making Italian food, as the top three "ethnic foods" are everywhere in America and the trends are often independent of the history.

I don't know the exact scholarly situation is when it comes to the influence of

"Ethnic" has no anthropological or historical connotation related to any specific cultures. Neither Latin Americans nor the descendants of imported African slaves are more "ethnic" than British and French colonists, unlike what you argue in this edit summary. They are all immigrants in one way or another. When it comes to the use of the word "ethnic" in the food industry, it is merely a euphemism to describe anything that is deemed exotic enough to Western culture (the same goes for music or fashion for that matter). If all foreign influences on American culture, according to you even that of Native Americans, are "ethnic", then what isn't?

Peter Isotalo 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely, we all know that the word "ethnic" can be used various ways. Let's not get into semantics about that, when we should obviously know the intention. We all know that it can be used pejoratively, as well as more scholarly or technically to refer to the origins of any person or group. You seem to be making an accusation against me that I don't know the difference, or that I am sloppy with such regard, which is plain rediculous. You pick up most any book on American cuisine and the word "ethnic" comes to attention, whether it be of British, Italian, Chinese, Mexican, Native American or other origin. I am not the one who is perpetuating the "nativist" versus "ethnic minority" thesis, as maybe you have overlooked that discussion in the above. I am not the one perpetuating the "exotic" nature of "ethnicity" either. Also, maybe you don't understand how the different paragraph areas under "ethnic and immigrant influence" works. Both the "early" and "later" groups are made up of various ethnicities, but their difference has to do with a few nuances, such as when they arrived in significant number, indigenous versus immigrant groups, nationalized peoples (such as Spanish, Mexican, Arcadian and Creoles), as well as other diaspora of peoples brought here against their will, (such as African-American slaves.) All these groups now live in the new, post-modern reality of America, providing a new post-modern, eclectic or globalized culture within the nation. For instance, if you look at what Wolfgang Puck and Norman Van Aken are doing today, regardless of what they said in the 1980's, they have moved beyond the historic context and into a world that "just is" global in its point of view. Many other chefs and foodies are doing the same. Honestly, my own work and point of view in my carreer is not "global," but actually more regional and specific. You are assuming that all this is my own point of view, when really I am just presenting it for the sake of an unbiased article with various points of views or realities. Some of these point of views may seem unfounded to you, but I think they can be evidenced and developed, as they are works in progress, just like the rest of the article. Don't knock it, but as Christopher has pointed out, have some "faith," before you assume or take contrary.Calitalia (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

Beyond history: new conceptions of the old "melting pot" culture

I've noticed that much of this ongoing discussion seems to assume that all this article deals with "historic" fact, excluding contemporary trends, surveys and reports to the basis. Did it ever occur to you that I'm not trying to get caught up in the debate of historiography? The influences of a cuisine do not necessarily have to be profoundly historic, but mabye simply a contemporary trend or phenomenon. Sure, they may have roots, but that is beside my point. I think many of today's Americans and many of the nations' chefs are not so much looking at their cuisine as an "historic" appreciation, as much as they are looking at it as a unique phenomenon with the pleasure of a diverse palate that exemplifies today's America. Much of our social and political influences also embody that idea. Hence, please see some of the more "contemporary" statistics and contributions added into the section under "ethnic and immigrant influences." All said, don't get me wrong, because I do appreciate history and I think it has its place. But, maybe that's beside the point.Calitalia (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Calitalia

One, please avoid personal attacks in stating I am "uneducated." You have taken much of my writing here out of context in order to support your point-of-view. Much of what you keep adding is a clear personal pov, and much of it is original research by reading information from cookbooks. I also disagree with your assumption that Paul Prudhomme was the first chef to influence "ethnic" cuisine in New Orleans. Justin Wilson was published and on television long before Prudhomme. The rest of the various chefs you mention directly from their cookbooks and you are not offering sources that state the facts that these chefs are influential in supporting their regional ethnic cuisines. I do not argue that chefs like Van Aiken, Puck, Waters, etc. are influential in supporting their regional cuisines, but secondary sources have to be used on Wikipedia, it is just a fact of the system. The mere fact that you earlier state "I think many of today's Americans and many of the nations' chefs are not so much looking at their cuisine as an "historic" appreciation, as much as they are looking at it as a unique phenomenon with the pleasure of a diverse palate that exemplifies today's America" is showing a POV and not a fact found by an acknowledged author of any subject, be it anthropology, sociology or history, but quite honestly, most of what is discussed here is in the larger structure of sociology and history, much less the finite structure of anthropology, even your statements on chefs of the 20 century fall within recent history, not the statistics of "today".--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seemed to call you "uneducated," but that's a response to how you and your friend seems to be characterizing me. My true point in such is not to call you stupid, but to point out the fact that your library of knowledge and all its sources can be different than my own. Its not to say that you are stupid, but that perhaps you have ignored or are not as familiar and supportive of the basis of knowledge that I present. Indeed, its the same kind of debate found in the constitutional convention of this country. Neither side was wrong or right, or necessarily ignorant, but came with their own knowledge base to create the consensus that we call the United States. Like the new authors I presented (Prudhomme, Aken, Tower, etc.), this is a common idea in American cuisine, that was even founded in the turmoil of Julia Child in the mid to late 1970's, during the Ford and Carter administrations. See her book "Appetite for Life." Anyway, if you read these books, as well as others, you will see that they cross-reference, if not refer to each other. They have all been in the national dialog, much of which continues today. Granted, more evidence can be presented, but such are growing pains. You guys are not giving me much of a chance and much of my time is being spent defending the new additions, instead of supporting and referencing them. Finally, my earlier statement "I think many of today's Americans and many of the nations' chefs are not so much looking at their cuisine as an "historic" appreciation, as much as they are looking at it as a unique phenomenon with the pleasure of a diverse palate that exemplifies today's America" is a paraphrase of an idea for the sake of discussion on this page, not the actual article; whereas, in the article itself, I have already begun to support such claim and have more to add to it. Its not just a point of view, but a statistical phenomenon supported by research in the foodservice industry.