/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>11564993
>was it better than today
Yes, there was a huge culinary renaissance taking place in the closing months of the first world war, only to be topped a decade later with the great depression.

>>11564993
No. The food 100 years ago is not better. The people who say so probably wouldn't even eat the brown spot on the banana. Billions of dollars go into the science behind making food look better and taste better, there's more effort going into this now than any other point in human history.

>>11565120
Not exactly. The better tasting cultivars are typically not mass marketed since they have unattractive qualities such as being more perishable, not looking good on a shelf, being easily damaged, etc. taking away from profitability.

Most people were not eating as well as they are today because they were poor and cooking well has never been a common skill even when all women had to cook.

I heard that we wouldn’t be able to handle the food from back then because of bacteria or something. Actually the further you go back in time the less we able to digest. I even heard that Viking feasts would kill us now.

>>11564993
100 years ago nobody had even heard of nutrients

>>11565135
>The better tasting cultivars are typically not mass marketed since they have unattractive qualities such as being more perishable, not looking good on a shelf, being easily damaged, etc. taking away from profitability.
Or almost going extinct from excessively trying to get the best profit by using a single variety.

>>11565135
What the average person today values in food is appearance and dopamine output. The food back then wasn't filled with excessive amounts of sugar, HFCS, preservatives, fats, etc. Most people would choose their current diet over having to eat white bread alone, soup, potatoes, rice, celery, carrots, peas, with meat, eggs, milk being a luxury.

>>11564993
They only ate black and white food.

Canned food was pretty revolutionary

>>11564993
My cousins side of the family operated a grocery in a midwest city of 10,000 people 100 years ago.

I've seen pictures of papers of what was regularly stocked... if the place still existed today it would be swarmed with foodies and hipsters.

>scoop bins of 14 different kinds of flour
>produce, bananas to kale to papaya to zucchini
>fruit flavored bottled seltzer and spring water.
>every imaginable cut of cow or pig
>imported tinned foods from around the world, Chinese tea to German sauerkraut.

I think people 100 years ago were eating quite well.

I was talking to my grandma on Thanksgiving about food back then. Of course she's only like 86 so really just Great Depression and WW2 stuff.

She said that meat was mainly the same, pork was fattier, the cuts were way different, and people used to eat a shit ton more venison in America.

>>11565177
Food isn’t full of that stuff now if you live in a first world country. That’s mostly an amerimutt thing

>>11564993
>was it better than today?
In some ways yes, in some ways no.

Most people had a far worse selection of food back then compared to what we have now. Supermarkets weren't a thing, people were very much restricted by geography and the local growing season.

That said, what food you did have was probably a lot better. There were no cultivars of plants or breeds of animals which traded away taste for higher yield. There were no artificially processed junk products, etc.

Modern food is much more accessible, but a lot of it is much worse. Factory farming fucked the flavor out of our meats. Industrial Ag has done the same to produce and grains. And of course the prevalence of junk food...

>>11564993
>What were people eating 100 years ago
>be german
>it's 1918 all of the sudden
Well, potato peel soup with breadcrumbs doesn't sound too bad, r-right guys?

>>11565353
So it's a matter of quantity over quality? If that's the case, I'd have to agree. An overabundance of cheap, processed food in modernized countries has led to people consuming whatever they like indiscriminately. It's a widespread sort of gluttony, if you will, to the extent that shaming people for eating too much can be considered hurtful.

>>11564993
I think you have to refine your search to get a difinitive answer.
Poor: First world countries eat better today bc of all the gibbs me dat. Today’s poor eat much much unhealthier, though hence the plague of fatties.
Is it better to be hungry and thin, feeling truly blessed for every meal, or morbidly obese, angry at the gobment for the soda tax? I think the answer is clear.
Middle class: Being able to eat out regularly these days compared to being able to buy the more choice cuts of meat for the wife to cook. The family unit was much tighter 100 years ago and eating dinner around the table was a key part of the day. Eating well every night while enjoying the company of loved ones in the comfort of your own home is the clear winner here.
Rich: this comes down to the quality of the chef you employ. 100 years ago they were passionate about their role in the house. Weren’t alcoholics by far the most part. Weren’t drug addicts for by far the most part.
100 years ago wins in all 3 categories.

>>11565416
>So it's a matter of quantity over quality?
Pretty much.
For the most part quality has gone way down.
OTOH, convenience and selection has greatly increased.

Cost is a mixed bag. Buying supermarket produce is a fuck of a lot more expensive than growing your own, which is what a lot of people did back then. OTOH, a lot of foods which people buy have gotten a lot cheaper.

>>11564993
The food was better a century ago if you lived on a farm. Everything would be fresh in season and there was a greater variety of produce (in terms of heirloom varieties of this and that available from seed companies). When you have farm fresh ingredients simple cooking works fine, so as long as the women in your family were decent cooks you ate well if you lived on a farm.

But 100 years ago There was a massive shift in population from farms to cities. As is always the case how well you eat in the city was a function of how wealthy you were. There wasn't much regulation in the food industry, so unscrupulous purveyors were selling adulterated or rotten products, particularly in the cases of meat and dairy. To some degree your life depended on how much you could trust the people your wife bought groceries from as much as it did on whether you made enough money for her to buy decent groceries in the first place. The middle class wasn't really much of a thing yet, so people were generally either rich or poor. Most were poor.

But what was the food itself like? In major US cities the main influences were English, Irish and German, so meat, gravy and potatoes were common. Industrially made sliced bread wasn't yet a thing, so sandwiches weren't as popular as they are now. There was a French/Italian bread craze going on, so if you lived in a place where Italians had recently arrived you could get a generation one sub sandwich. Hamburgers and pizza both existed, but they were novelty foods. The closest things to fast food would have been chili and hot dogs. Pushcarts would have lined the streets of poorer neighborhoods, many selling snacks like roast or candied nuts. Rich men often ate at steak or chop houses, as meat could be brought into major cities from far away by rail. Those with more delicate appetites enjoyed salads in mayo based dressing, as commercially produced mayo pretty much launched a salad craze.

>>11565139
Maybe if you're a nancy who can't handle a rare steak. Or a rare carrot for that matter.

I'd like to have a time machine to compare something like some Mcdonald's combo from my childhood maybe with a current combo, it'd be the only way to be really sure if they are smaller and less tasty now or if it's just nostalgia

>>11565569
>a rare steak
A century ago in the US all the meat was well done. That's why gravy and ketchup were everywhere. Americans were scared of European rare and medium doneness levels in meat until the second half of the last century.

Reminder that Possum was the official meat of New York City.

>>11564993
My grandpa grew up in the great depression and says people used to eat lots of weird things we wouldn't consider food today, like pickled watermelon rinds.

>>11565656
The Depression was less than a century ago. It, WWII and the postwar combination of increased industrialization of food production, advertising and supermarkets really trashed American cuisine. We're only recovering from it now. 100 years ago the food would have been WAY better than what people ate during the Depression just to keep from starving to death.

>>11565656
Pickled watermelon rind is actually pretty good. They only recipes I've seen use the white part not actual green rind. I used a Charleston from my garden, the rind was more crisp and delicate.

>>11564993
History exists in the form of old cookbooks. Visit a library and copy a few recipes from hundreds of years ago.

>>11565803
Oh and forgot to add, that the first restaurant review, The New York Times ran on 1 January 1859, entitled How We Dine.

>>11564993
>What were people eating 100 years ago
not very much, with wartime rationing and all that

>>11564993
There was a much higher percentage of people working small/ medium sized farms and ranches and they ate much better since their food was sustainably grown w/o petroleum based carcinogens.
City dwellers ate much worse, however, since vegetable/fruit couldn't be transported long distances or stored effectively, but especially when it came to meat and meat products since there was no oversight or regulation (see "The Jungle").

>>11565120
>Billions of dollars go into the science behind making food look better and taste better, there's more effort going into this now than any other point in human history.

The "billions of dollars" going into the "science" of food is done solely for the purpose of manipulating people into buying their shit using biological and psychological trickery people aren't aware of, or would expect from any company claiming to be "ethical".
>what color does "x" group respond to
>where can we increase sugar/salt/fat in the recipe
>how can we substitute good ingredients for shitty cheap ones

The "food industry" isn't doing anything to further the quality of food for any other purpose than to sell more of their bullshit, and the "improvements" they cite usually aren't.

>>11564993
they didn't have food back then, food was only invented in the '30s as an economic project to help the US out of the depression

>>11565120
>Billions of dollars go into the science behind making food look better and taste better
Look better? Absolutely. Taste better? Hell no, unless you mean in the context of how do we make absoloute garbage taste better than sawdust.

Generally speaking, industrialization has traded away flavor to gain long shelf life, durability in transit, and profit.

I'll take a lumpy, easily burst, bug-holed, garden tomato over one of those picture-perfect but flavorless red water balloons from the supermarket any day.

>>11565894
100 years ago WWI was over.

>>11565700
My grandmother was eating mashed potato sandwiches so no.

>>11566695
I have relatives who remember raw onion sandwiches, because that was all they had. That's kind of my point - American cuisine was pretty good 100 years ago - generally good ingredients and a lot of regional variation. Then the Depression traumatized the nation so badly that Americans were willing to eat any garbage as long as it was cheap and plentiful. Which is what gave us decades of foodgore in the later half of the 20th Century.

>>11566741
This was before the depression.

I have a cook book from 100 years ago they ate the same things we do now but you have to make everything your self no short cuts or premade stuff

>>11566748
True. The Depression was almost a decade away 100 years ago.

would be cool to travel back in time and eat pre-GMO bananas and watermelons when they looked and apparently tasted quite different.

>>11566766
No, I mean my grandmother lived before the depression. Most people were barely getting by and were poor until the latter half of the 20th century in America. That you think America or the world was a food utopia before the depression is patently false. They were just trying to get by. As an example the only reason we have tomato based sauces out of Italy is tomatoes were thought to be poisonous so the only ones who ate them were peasants because they were hungry. That was long before the depression

>>11566790
>That you think America or the world was a food utopia before the depression is patently false
I do hot think this. I'm aware the middle class didn't really exist, and if you weren't rich or living on a farm eating well was a struggle. Especially for dirt poor immigrants in urban areas. But if you were rich in the city or lived on a successful farm you were eating very well back then.

>>11566813
Forgot to add:
Also A LOT more people lived on farms back ten.

>>11566813
>>11566825
You have never looked at the kinds of recipes the women back then were using on the farm have you? We are eating better than them. The recipes weren't just no frills. They would omit ingredients we take for granted for some of the same foods we eat today.

>>11566843
Really simple cooking works fine when you start out with top quality ingredients. That's why rich people today pay top dollar for farm to table experiences of seasonal fresh food simply prepared.

>>11566813
The rich in America were mostly wasps who came from a food culture, Britain, that is still not known for good food. The foods they ate we would consider today meager or plain.

Bring back the automat.

Pls

>>11566856
No, they pay for it because it is a meme and they have more money than brains. Top quality ingredients even prepared well might seem nice until you realize where is all the seasoning and herbs we have come to expect in food which in old time American cuisine they would do without many times. Also on the farm a cake might not get milk or eggs if none were on hand. Forget about cocoa/chocolate, cinnamon, sugar, brown sugar, and nutmeg. Anything you would expect in a simple cake except flour/corn meal and water would not likely be there.

>>11565341
Immigrants have the best groceries because thy know where to get the good shit

>>11566874
>Hasn't had a vending egg salad sandwich that has been sitting in the machine for days.
If you have ever been to a hospital then you have had this experience and it is not good eats. That is what an automat is.

>>11566889
Don't forget the extra sediment in the water because filtration is not a thing.

>>11565453
You’re just talking out of your ass

>>11566213
You’re so uninformed about food science it hurts.

>>11566843
>They would omit ingredients we take for granted for some of the same foods we eat today
>Jebediah, we is out o' HFCS, soy and 15 different petroleum based chemicals so you'se nuggets might be a little off tasting today!

>>11566925
Sure I am, Schlomo.

>>11566911
Read, "Life on the Mississippi," where Twain states that it's waters were particularly prized precisely because of the sediment. Of course that was before the industrial manufacturers and unsustainable petroleum based agriculture poisoned all the US waters.

>>11566889
There were stores.... cocoa was a common ingredient easily by 1865.

>>11567016
Yes, there were general stores but many didn't live in the vicinity of them or bought from them since most had little to no money.
>>11567013
Dirt in water....that's a good thing.

>>11567092
Now you’re dragging the poor into it...

Spices were a very common item for colonial American cooking. As was sugar, maple sugar, honey, condensed apple juice as a sugar... even the poor could afford a yearly spurge.

>>11567092
Hawkers brought goods to those backwoods places.

Keep in mind OP said 100 years ago, as in 1918...

>>11567142
The conversation has expanded beyond that because someone simplified food culture into everything before the depression was good and everything after was bad until the hipsters graced us with their presence a few years ago.

>>11564993
back then, people thought sugar was a performance enhancing drug. So, athletes ate bowls of sugar before sporting events to help them do better.
'The Case Against Sugar'- book source

>>11567173
Have you ever had sex with a child hopped up on sugar? It is completely true.

>>11565349
America is the definition of first world

>>11567172
Fine but point is that people often saved for those annual occasions when it was thought OK to splurge fifty cents more on the weekly household budget and have a chocolate cake for their birthday.

>>11565416
Shaming people for anything is hurtful. That’s the whole point of shame.

>>11567182
Can't say that I have

>>11567195
Bucket list.

>>11565349
OBSESSED

>>11567184
If we are talking about the 19th century those farms largely bartered. They had no money. There were probably many who still didn't use money into the early twentieth century.

If this post is still up in a few hours ill post some recipes from my 1911 cookbook

>>11567214
Oh they had money (needed to pay taxes) they just were as frugal as possible.

>>11567183
t. Cletus McMutt

>>11567305
based teetotalers dropping some truth bombs

>>11567305
>ywn be a housewife
>ywn have a loving husband that brings you presents
Why live.

>>11565349
>oi oi oi fockin amerimutts mate bloody ell
It's only brits who do this. You guys are insecure.

>>11567375
Is true though, the EU has better health control.

>>11567305
>no meat

>>11567305
Yeah, but alcohol won't leave you for the fucking mailman.

>>11565177
If I could have a meat stew with white bread every day I'd be pretty happy. Better than the shit grilled chicken breast and beer I'll be having.

>you'll never eat old food
it's not fair bros... it's not fair

>>11567593
Check those pizza boxes strewn about your room.

>>11567569
Most sounds good...but theres some nope

>>11567569
>small sirloin steak (for one) 85
>sirloin steak 1.40

what?

>>11564993
Pretty much the same basic meat, produce and dry goods you can get at the grocery store today.

Food 100 years ago was inferior by every metric. Our choices and nutritional benefits today are immeasurably superior.

>>11567972

I'm assuming prices are in cents, unless over a dollar. Inflation man.

>>11567385
meat wasn't a common food item in households until the refrigerator came to be

>>11567569
At the bottom, with the list of garnishes, between "Sauce Bearnaise" and "Bourgeoise" there's a option for "Stanley"

WAT?

Was Stanley just standing back of the kitchen jerking off onto plates to "garnish" them?

>>11567267
Go on Gertrude

>>11567294
t. moron

>>11568208
i found a couple results online describing stanley sauce as a mild flour and cream based sauce with curry powder and onions

>>11565341
Just go to any immigrant shop

>>11565135
On this last note it's worth noting that a lot of urban housing of the era did not have kitchens because the risk of fire was too great. Especially in the tenement style homes. This was also the case in Ancient Rome of all places. Landlords didn't want to take the risk.

So believing that the past was some sort of golden era of feminine culinary ability is over simplifying. There were good home cooks and there were people who didn't have the means who likewise were unable to transmit any culinary ability.

Anyway, if you look at old recipe books there are definitely winners there but lots of stuff that would seem bland to us today. They boiled a lot of food and didn't season as heavily as we might now.

>>11568277
Define a lot because heating and hot water were produced by an in hearth range so they had heat, hot water and a place to cook all in one.

>>11568277
In Rome, if the place burnt down, the owner could charge more rent for having a new building.

They had kitchen/toilet rooms.

>>11567267
bump for recipes

>>11567267
That's just 7 Eleven in 24 hour time. I'm not interested in soggy hot dog recipes.

>>11565120
red delicious apples still exist

>>11568915
So do all kinds of other tasteless meat and produce items that require lots of help through seasonings, spices, herbs and sauces to taste good. My guess is none of the actual ingredients you can buy in a supermarket today taste as good as what came off family farms 100 years ago. Which is why we have to put so much effort into making them taste good with elaborate recipes.

>>11564993
Not sure.
The Pure Food and Drug Act would have been implemented pretty fully by 1918, so it would be fun to try some old variants of modern engineered fruits/veggies.
After that, shit would be pretty dull.

>>11567593
There's hope yet for man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm8f5Kj_CrY

>>11566915
Druggie line chef detected.

>1918
>Just after the first world war

Food was 'conserved', just shy of being rationed.

The quantity was decent, more than enough to go around.

Actual selection would be relatively poor. Fresh fruits were hard to get in the cities for example. Garlic, ginger, spices (other than salt and pepper) pretty much unheard of. Olive oil was only sold in chemists.

Many people didn't have a fridge at the time, only a larder which meant keeping meat etc.. fresh was a real challenge. Fresh fish was only really available near the sea or lakes (for the average person).

Grains were common all over. Plenty of break, oats, pulses like beans.

>>11565139
This

>>11565453
>assumpschunz

>>11567305
C. $100

>>11565401
Better than eating tortillas and tomato vines

Detroit was eating a lot of frog legs.

https://www.splendidtable.org/story/in-turn-of-the-century-detroit-frog-legs-were-eaten-by-the-ton

>>11565120

Retard

>>11564993
If you were to show the people the food we have today, it’s sad but probably 99% of them would choose our variety.
Show them a typical amerifat due to said food and I expect that percentage would drop off, but probably not by a lot.

>>11567267
/k/ here, and I am extremely interested in learning the best way to cook a 1911. Last time I tried, I think I overboiled it because it came out tough and stringy.

>>11564993
MRE reviewers are the best authority on how food quality has changed.
the all seem unanimous that at least the canned food of even 50 years ago was of significantly better quality. this is based on canned shit thats been in storage for decades so who knows how accurate this is but its honestly as close as we get.

food was obviously more natty back then which is a big draw for me. the part that would suck is the lack of exotic ingredients and spices and such. Like, my parents tell me about how pineapple was a special treat and a luxury item when they were kids. I can't even imagine what that would be like.

>>11570195
the most delicious handguns are CZ's you absolute mong. 1911's are fucking bush meat

>>11565341
But most people would eat shitty bread with the worst kind of flour, barely edible meat, rancid butter, and assorted rotten veggies and fruits.

>>11570222
>worst flour
White flour?

>>11570228
terrible mixes of impure shit that produced foul bread

>>11566889

Absolute tastelet

>>11566902
t. Alton Brown

>>11570292
This. Part of the reason we gravitate toward food with extreme seasoning is because our ingredients are so lacking in flavor these days. You can easily see this for yourself if you have a farmer's market near you where they sell heirloom vegetables and meat from heritage breed animals. Go buy some tomatoes, carrots, radishes, potatoes and chicken at the farmer's market. Then go buy the same stuff at the supermarket. Prepare meals from these ingredients simply and taste them side by side. The supermarket ingredients will result in flavorless food that will have you reaching for some sort of condiment to make it edible. The stuff from the farmer's market will actually have flavor of its own without requiring much assistance on your part. That's how food used to be, which is why old recipes were so simple. If you had salt, pepper and a little good butter you really didn't need much else.

>>11564993
no up until a certain point there was no quality control and mass-produced food was quite literally filled with poison

>>11570395
>mass-produced food was quite literally filled with poison
Still is. But we eat a lot more of it now than they did back then.

>>11565803
It wouldn't be the same because the quality and type of ingredients are totally different

>>11570407
this is incorrect, I'm not talking about too much sugar salt fat oil er cetera, I'm talking about literal poisons like arsenic and shit, you have no idea what your fucking talking about and I suggest you do a little bit of a reading and you would blow your mind

>>11564993
The classic.
>>11568934
>My guess is none of the actual ingredients you can buy in a supermarket today taste as good as what came off family farms 100 years ago. Which is why we have to put so much effort into making them taste good with elaborate recipes.
Fucking retard, elaborate recipes exists since before the invention of writing. 100 years is not long at all.

>>11570430
I know exactly what I'm talking about. You grew up with trans fat in all your baked goods until we figured out the stuff was poison. We have an e. coli scare that kills people every now and then because the lettuce is contaminated. The chicken you buy is often covered in salmonella, which is why it has to be handled carefuly and cooked completely. The whole mad cow thing wasn't all that long ago. I'll grant you things were more dramatic before the Pure Food and Drug act, but we still have this shit going on today.

The big difference is that industrially grown and processed foods were a much smaller part of people's diets than they are today. Most of what people ate was grown on a recognizable farm, which is very much not the case today.

>>11570472
Long ingredient lists were not much of a thing in American cooking. Neither was meat cooked less than well done. That kind of stuff started in the 60's and 70's in the US.

>>11565401
At least you actually get to eat, Hans.
All of my grain was taken away in the prodrazvyorstka.

>>11570481
>in American cooking
Lmao since when are we speaking specifically of the USA ?
Also you should look at creole food in Louisiana, it was elaborate.

>>11570510
>creole food
Great stuff. There are some elaborate dishes because rich people always ate elaborate food, and these were wealthy people of French ancestry. But many of the classics from that cuisine are pretty simple, just boldly flavored.

>>11565556
>he doesnt know
kraut anon here,
we've been farmers for all ive ever traced back my ancestors back.
my grandparents and parents in their childhood almost never ate fresh bread, despite baking all of it them self.
It was far more important to eat the old hard stock to not let anything go to waste.
Milk-bread soup was a nearly daily dish.
however, two things they never had a shortage off were Cider and Beat Sugar. Cakes nearly every week and Christmas cookies lasted way until march usually
Fucking boiled Potatoes were Pig food a merely 80 years back

>>11570645
Are you a farmer ?

>>11570666
no
its common for only one offspring to inherit most of the land
splitting it serves no one

>>11567569
Good to know even in the stone ages, those fine folks still relished their deenz

>>11570677
I dunno where I'm from they usually share it, not split it and work together.
Only if they're a few obviously, it's hard to live today with a familial farm.

>>11568044
>Peanut butter and bacon on toast
Bacon XD

>>11570476
>industrial grown
>Most of what people ate was grown on a recognizable farm, which is very much not the case today.
this is a hipster tier argument
there are mainly 3 differences in grains produced 100 years back and now
1. Mineral Fertilizer
2. fungicide
3. breed
Despite the industrial starch potatoes and such, a potato is still the same as 100 years back
but i bet your ass, mold and mushroom poison content in flour is way lower today

>>11570733
That #3 is a huge one.
Modern cultivars have traded away flavor in exchange for higher yields (read: lower prices). Ones from 100 years ago had not, and thus they tasted a lot better.

For a fucking huge epiphany, compare Carolina Gold rice with most things that pass for "rice" these days. Hell, you don't even have to taste it. Just smell the raw uncooked rice.

>>but i bet your ass, mold and mushroom poison content in flour is way lower today
Almost certainly. I'm not really worried about those things though. I am worried about the fact that my food, while cheap, is cucked in the taste department.

>>11570790
This. My wife is a high end baker. She goes out of her way to source Red Fife wheat because it just tastes better than commercial wheat. Heirloom varieties often have better flavor than modern commercial, which were bred to be easy to grow.

>>11570733
>this is a hipster tier argument
Only because you don't like it. Besides hipsters have excellent taste in food. It's the one thing they tend to get right.

>>11564993
>be worker in New York in 1890s
>stop by local food cart and get a dozen cheap oysters for lunch..as one does every day as the Hudson is still clean enough to breed millions of oysters
>drop by the local butcher. Order dried sausage because the raw meat smells rotten (it is rotten).
>visit family in the country on the weekend and eat fresh chicken, greens, and root vegetables
>wash it all down with a pitcher of cider
>uncle recommends a new "cure all" to aid digestion (made of opium and various heavy metals)

It was a mixed bag.

>>11565139
and I suppose that you don't get to go to Valhalla if you die on the shitter

>>11571187
Just ask you friend to kill you on the toiler.

>>11570989
Most workers purchased a bucket (growler) of beer from a little kid and drank that for lunch.

>>11570412
Not always.

>>11570989
If you went back in time with modern knowledge of nutrition it would be god-tier but living there with that mindset would probably be either-or. Most people were probably somewhere on the spectrum of alcoholics.

>>11569517
Seems like you’re thinking of the 1640’s?

>>11565010
is that when mcdonlands intraduced theyre hot apple py?

>>11571946
THEY HAD DEENZ

>>11565120
No. Companies are focused on producing products that are agreeable to as many babypalates as possible. Then these companies push mom-and-pop type businesses with actual quality out of the market and overtake it with mediocre versions of the same products.

>>11570538
you've obviously never been to Cajun country, we broke af mane

>>11564993
No. Most of the food back then was either heavily adulterated or poorly made. They didn't even have splinter free toilet paper until the 1930's let alone the late 1910's.

>>11567183
Absolutely not. How can you say that when it's the only ""1st world"" that doesn't have free healthcare, has outrageous student debt, a fucking snake oil salesmen medicine market where anything can be sold before it's regulated and tested. America dips from some 1st world to complete 3rd world. Some of you don't have clean drinking water, your police are morally bankrupt and constantly beating and killing citizens for nothing and middle income earners are expected to pay for everything when billionaires don't get taxed jack shit.
He'll most businesses aren't taxed, what the fuck is up with that. Do you still believe that fuckin scam of "trickle down economics"

>>11574909
Americans have been fucked by the rich and scam artists since the beginning. The rest of those problems are post-WW2 things. We never got a Marshall Plan given to us unlike Europe, so yeah we still have a lot of people suffering here. So do you, or were you too high on your moral superiority to forget about Greece, FYROM, Montenegro and the tent cities in Iberia where migrants grow all your produce?

>>11574909
Because that's not actually what First World means.
First World - NATO allied countries
Second World - Soviet allied countries
Third World - Non-allied countries
Look it up, that's what it actually means.

>>11570166
Well Michigan used to be a french colony, most cites are ether french or Indian named.

>>11574909

>free healthcare
>Eurotrash actually think shit is free if mommy-and-daddy government gives it to them

Small wonder that your tiny, irrelevant Brussels vassals are all circling the drain.

>>11564993
They were eating dicks just like today so nothing changed.

>>11575505
>he doesn’t know about national insurance
Retard.

>>11575509
Source on this?

>>11575518

I've got schematics for a free energy machine to sell you.

>>11575505
But we do pay for it retard.

>>11576063
Don't call me a retard. I will leave the site if you call me a retard.

>>11573564
You're broke now because it's all tourism and petro dollars. Back when Cajun cuisine came into being NOLA was a major port and almost a world class city, helping build many fortunes in the region. That may no longer be the case, but the culture it helped build thankfully lives on. It may not be what it used to be, but the fact it still exists at all is something of a miracle.

>>11576069
Sorry bru :(

>>11574967
Yes and the word “vintage” is only meant to be used to talk about wine...

language evolution

>>11576063

Precisely my point. If you're paying for it -- however indirectly -- it isn't fucking free.

>>11565139
>20th century food would kill us man!
Whoever told you these things are full of shit. Unsanitary food preparation is one thing, but You're alive today because your ancestors survived eating all kinds of shit and passed their shit-eating genes on to the next generation.

>>11577188
It's free for the poor people who don't pay the tax.
For people for do pay the tax it's only way less expensive.

>>11576400
Nah, there's a difference between a word evolving to a broader context and a word or phrase just being applied incorrectly in popular speech. It was mostly the news media in the 80s-90s that started throwing First and Third World around without bothering to learn the meaning. It's a bit like how so many people can't use the word irony correctly.

>>11568903
Underrated post

>>11577661
No, it’s just how a language works sometimes.

>>11564993
>What were people eating 100 years ago
Like all great questions, it depends. If you're living on a farm you're eating eggs, porridge, bread, preserves, vegetables (but not tomatoes unless you're italian), heavily salted and cured beef, and whatever tins of food you get from the local market.
There was a massive influx of people moving to urban environments during this time due to industrialization, so with more mouths to feed people were getting pretty...creative with the food. You could really only buy produce from the produce stands and meat from a shop, and preservative chemicals were not regulated at the time so you'd get things like arsenic in milk for color and to extend its shelf life, and heavily, heavily salted and rotten meat if you were poor, so it was not great.
>and was it better than today?
Nah. Some things may have tasted "better" but most everything you ate was a gamble.

February 18, 1915.

>>11577809
I disagree

>>11577953
What is the purpose of a language? To convey an idea. So if 99% of the speakers understand what someone means by calling a country Third World, basically a polite way to call it a shithole, then in context, that’s what the phrase now means.

>>11564993
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--eC2x5siSg

>>11578056
I still disagree, but you do you.

>>11578212
Cold War is over...

>>11578220
It is, yes. So the First/Second/Third World are both incorrectly used and obsolete. I understand the concept of linguistic drift and words evolving over time, but this wasn't a progressive evolution it was literally the news media taking a phrase they had heard from Academics and repeating it incorrectly within a very brief window of time.
Anyway, I feel we've reached an impasse here and all we're doing adding to post count of thread and not much else.

>>11578268
OK, but don’t ever let me see you use the term vintage for things that are not wine.

>>11578276
Don't tell me what to do, you're not my real Dad.

>>11578339
Too bad your Mom doesn’t know who is.

>>11578349

bump

>>11566925
pretentious cuck, a literal caveman roasting a dead animal on a fire had a better "culinary experience" than you will ever have in your sedentary pacified life

People 2000 years ago ate better than us.

>>11566790
Tomatoes are in the nightshade family which actually is deadly. People were right to be suspicious of them, but that was back in the 1500s. By the 1900s the USA legally defining tomatoes as veggies to avoid higher tariffs on fruit.

>>11577950
How does he get out without breaking the fruit?

>>11580602
>Tomatoes are in the nightshade family
what? i eat 2 tomatoes per day

>>11580204
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AD_18
Death of Ovid.

heres some recipe from 1908

>>11581249

>>11581253

100 years wasn't that long ago.

>>11581258

>>11570332
To be fair, medieval recipes for the rich called for a LOT of spices as a show of wealth and also exotic taste. The use of spices and flavourings is a little more nuanced than 'bland food/good food'.

>>11580204
If you call a subsistence vegan diet on roughly milled groats a 'good diet', then sure.

>>11581290
Sure. When pepper and saffron cost more than gold loading your food up with them were easy ways to show off your wealth. And since the only real pro cooks worked for the wealthy they were the only ones eating complicated, nuanced food.

My point was that many recipes from a century ago seem pretty basic, but that doesn't mean they weren't tasty. Because many of the ingredients used back then were more flavorful than their modern industrially produced equivalents.

>>11581319
>boil spaghetti 15 to 25 minutes
Holy mother of fuck!

>>11581484
This recipe is to be prepared at 12000ft above sea level

>>11581484
I assume they were trying to get as much volume as possible

>>11570222
>rancid butter
The basis of all Mongolian cuisine

>>11581616
Same in Tibet.

>>11565177
are you sure? the industrial revolution was fuelled on high sugar and high calorie diets. the whole reason Brits drink sweet tea is it was a quick way to give labourers energy

>>11581319
this sounds good as fuck

>>11564993
These are some from a 1913 cook book called, The Economy Administration Cookbook," where politician wives recommend poor people recipes. This first was one of the most hilarious because she's a congressman's wife from inbred Indiana, but a fucking vegan in 1913 midweamst, lol!

>>11582312

>>11582318

>>11582323