American (Food) Revolution: Final Installment

Several weeks ago, I wrote a couple of posts on the history of vegetarian cooking in the U.S. over the past several decades. My posts were mostly centered around the idea that vegetarian cooking out of the 1970s (The Moosewood Cookbook) was not archaic and old-fashioned (as a magazine article I cited had it), but in fact were the progenitors of the revolution that put vegetables at the center of a meal (on one end of the spectrum) and resulted in more emphasis on vegetables than had ever been seen before in U.S. cooking (on the other end).

Then, I had a very wild couple of weeks and had to set the posts aside for a while.

But now I’m back, and I want to wrap up those posts by talking about what I think the attempt to date the vegetable food revolution to the restaurant Greens rather than Moosewood means for this cultural moment.

I kind of alluded to it in my second post. Greens is a very upscale restaurant, and to date the revolution there subtly shifts the general “more vegetables, more often, and more creatively done” movement of the past several decades to groups that are economically upscale rather than the population at large.

It shifts ownership and provenance, as it were, to the wealthy from the funky and the creative. In that, it tracks very closely to other phenomena of the past several decades that have increasingly resulted in a wider and wider split between rich and poor, or even very rich and very medium. And that’s too bad.

Yes, I know all the objections that can be raised to this view. I could itemize them myself. First, Greens is affordable for the middle class and I’ve characterized it as a home of the rich. Second—and broader—the American Food Revolution Vegetable Style was always pretty much about the upscale. At the very least, this argument might run, it came out of the educated classes as exemplified in the Moosewood Café of Ithaca, NY, home to a major university (Cornell). As such, it was arguably populated by the upwardly mobile and striving.

I still think there is a world of difference. Yes, any middle class person can spring for a meal at Greens. And yes, Moosewood and its ilk were pretty much all aimed toward the educated classes. But Moosewood and its kind were accessible, and they were importantly accessible. The cooking they espoused was creative, cheap, and theoretically open to anyone wanting to learn it. As a movement, it employed creators, learners and beginners. Greens as paradigm, in contrast, is about chefs and foodies already established as leaders and their further mega-establishment in expensive real estate. Accessibility as a foundational tenet it has not.

Greens also shows the influence more of Alice Waters’s Chez Panisse, founded in Berkeley around chez panissethis time, and dedicated to a more sophisticated palate. Chez Panisse was, initially, also a place for creators and beginners, and struck something of a new way in American cookery at the time. But again, it was not the vegetable revolution that The Moosewood Cookbook was; it simply upped the sophistication of the food. In this, it is arguably more akin to Julia Child’s work in making French cooking more accessible to middle- and upper-class Americans than to either Moosewood or Greens.

If I were writing a history of U.S. cookery since the 1960s, arguably all three of these restaurants, and Julia as a celebrated cook, worked to make different forms of cooking available to Americans. But Greens and Chez Panisse are at home in upscale real estate, and Julia Child arguably made French cooking more accessible than it had been, but never fully part of the average American home. It seems to me that only Moosewood and its kind offered an accessible and flexible form of cooking that was notably democratic. And I salute it for that. And for the vegetables.


Language Fun, Canadian Style

Greetings, readers! I had a very wild June and it’s so good to be back in this blog, conversing as I will.

Today, I’m just going to focus on things I find very cool about language. As readers of this blog know, I am very fond of mystery novels, never more so than in the summer. My text is a mystery novel, Old City Hall, by the Canadian writer Robert Rotenberg. (Part of the great NPR “Crime in the City” series.)

Perhaps I should say things he finds very cool, because a character in this novel (a lawyer named Albert Fernandez) is the occasion for extremely interesting observations made about the English language. Fernandez is from South America, emigrated as a child to Toronto, and though outwardly fluent, has worked very hard to not let his struggles with English show. As a kid, falling into a Canadian snowbank, he shouted “aid me” to the other students. And was mercilessly teased by those same kids, for not knowing the proper idiomatic form of “help me.”

So here is Albert, musing about the English language by recalling a college linguistics lecture: “the professor…drew a line down the middle of the blackboard, and wrote…’Anglo-Saxon’ on one side and ‘Norman’ on the other.’” Words with the same meaning face each other across the divide: “go in/enter; meet/rendezvous.” The pairing that previously gave him trouble, “help/aid,” is accounted for: “Thanks to the French invasion of England in 1066, the two main [contributors to the current language] ran parallel throughout.”

Then Albert Fernandez muses on English political speeches: “That’s where Churchill came in…Churchill understood the power of the simple Anglo-Saxon words. He preferred them to the flowery, foreign Norman words. His most famous speech, ‘We will fight them on the beaches…,’ was the greatest example. Every word was Anglo-Saxon, except for the very last one: ‘…and we will never surrender.’ ‘Surrender,’ the only three-syllable word in the whole speech, was a flowery French word instead of the simpler, Anglo-Saxon ‘give up.’ In this way, Churchill underscored how the very idea of surrender was a foreign concept to his British audience.”

Ok, I’ve quoted at some length here. Why? Well, first, this passage exemplifies the kind of close reading that makes study of English so much fun—and so meaningful. It’s what students and teachers in English departments get to do, and this is a very nice example (and done by lawyers, which just underscores how important language is to understanding and analysis). Albert applies this to his experience in courts, observing that a client’s tone changed in a way that caused Albert to believe he was lying; only later, when he reads the transcript and begins to circle the Norman words, does he begin to understand why. When the accused uses Anglo-Saxon words (“I walked into the kitchen”) he is telling the truth; the shift occurs when he begins using Norman words instead (“to the best of my recollection”; “she maneuvered”).

The other pleasure of this is that it’s a clever commentary on the background of the book itself. The maple leaf flagnovel is set in a profoundly multicultural Canada, with a backdrop of many languages, but of course the two official are English and French. Highlighting English and Norman this way implicitly makes a plea that Canada, not Britain or the U.S., is the inheritor and paradigm of the polyglot tongues that underlie contemporary English. (I know the quoted passage about the accused is kind of a swipe at French. Still, the hero of the series—a detective named Ari Greene—drives around listening to the French language stations on his car radio. So there is that.)

And here’s a fun fact I’ve never been able to work in anywhere else: since I referred to the Norman invasion earlier, at least there’s an opening. Early in graduate school, I had to buy The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. To draw a distinction between it and British histories written to assume a proto-empire and English triumphalism already apparent in the medieval period, the introduction implies that the England of this time was more colonized (earlier, by the Danes; by the French) and multivocal than earlier understood. Guess what the last numbered page is? 1066. No accident, think I. A wonderful example, I’ve always thought, of using the physicality of the book to comment on its contents.

Another fun fact:  the picture here is from a great post on the early designs for Canada’s Maple Leaf flag. Click on the link here to read.

And happy July!