If you had too choose only ONE nations cuisine to live off of,

California

>>7134186
Personaly, I would go with italian.

italy

File: Milhouse_Van_Houten.png (56KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x500px

mexico

USA

Canada as a whole.

File: Lebanon.png (2KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 284x177px

>>7134186
pic related

Korea.

>Grilled fish
>Kimchi
>Rice

It's like crack, can't get enough ever.

>>7134186
So we're allowed to pick a specific part of Murrica, yeah?
Southern USA.
>barbecue
>fried chicken
>perfect biscuits and iced tea
>soul food
>cajun seafood
>pickle chips

>>7134212

Enjoy your diabetes

>>7134186
italy of course

>>7134195
Seconded.

Australia

Meat pie and iced coffee every day

>>7134212
If this is allowed, then that's my answer. If not, then some bastard version of Italian cuisine.

Dried pasta and canned tomatoes are easy to keep around. Frozen garlic bread ain't bad. Cured sausages and aged cheeses keep well. I'm not against dried herbs, frozen ravioli and lasagna, jarred marinara, Kraft parmesan, etc. Onions and garlic store with a bit of effort. Then there's pickled peppers, olives, anchovies, capers, tomato paste, sun dried tomatoes, nuts, etc. Italian subs are the best.

I hate shopping, and it's easy to always have some god-tier meals with Italian food.

If what >>7134212 is a-okay, then that.
Otherwise, British. Seriously.
Brits get shit on for their cuisine but they had a rich culinary tradition once upon a time. Then came rationing. The damaging effects of rationing is felt today in British home-cookery, but high British cuisine never felt felt that belt-tightening.

>all dat French influence
>all dem Indian spices
>all dat fried fish, fried potatoes and fried everythingthefuckelse
>all dem stews
>all dat everything that comes out of a British oven
>motherfucking sausage rolls and pork pies

Seriously, British high cuisine is top notch as is some of their errday food. I ain't even a buttertoothed/snaggletoothed tea-sucking limy, I'm a filthy, greasy Medshit.

probably japan
not even memeing

Italy

Italy no question

>>7134309
>but they had a rich culinary tradition once upon a time. Then came rationing

You know, I hear that a lot but I can't help but think it is not true. Last year I bought a copy of Mrs. Beeton's, which is regarded as the quintessential British cookbook. It was published well before both world wars so it pre-dated any sort of rationing by decades. And it was also written from the perspective of a wealthy homemaker because it discusses the jobs to be done by the various maids, butlers, and servants of a wealthy household. So here we have an example of classic British cookery without the influence of rationing (or other form of poverty), and yet the book itself states that British cuisine has the reputation of being the worst in the world.

So in my opinion the reputation of "British cuisine is awful" came about well before rationing. No doubt that wartime rationing made the problem worse, but it certainly didn't create that reputation.

>>7134329
>wealthy homemaker
That's my new second favourite oxymoron. Still doesn't beat 'irregular pattern,' though.
Anyway, not one of here recipes was meant for high cuisine.

>>7134186

>USA is off the table

There go the World's best Chefs.

I'm not playing anymore.

>>7134366
>Anyway, not one of here recipes was meant for high cuisine.

Have you ever bothered to read the book or are you just talking out your ass? The example recipe sections towards the end are massively fancy multi-course meals clearly meant for the aristocracy.

Spain, pretty surprised I'm the first to mention it.

File: 1435856616403.gif (2MB, 177x150px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 177x150px

>>7134309

>>7134186
I dunno, I'm glad that I don't have to choose.

>>7134186
Canada or Mexico America has bled into their cuisine I'll get a similar range to choose from with slightly reduced quality

>>7134390
>implying a book quite literally meant for /housewives/ was also meant for the well-to-do
The aristocracy has no need to learn to cook. The meals were meant for the middle class, not the aristocracy and, as we all know, the middle class just love to act-as-if, to pretend and ape at the mores and social customs of the upper classes.
If you honestly think that a book that provides pricing estimates of the costs of each meal and a guide to budgeting was meant for aristocracy, you've sorely missed the point.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a book centred about British high cuisine, full stop.

>>7134449
fuck off you anarchist occupy fagget
Go wear an A in a circle with your fake leather jacket.

File: everyday-lunch-menu.jpg (165KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1280x720px

>>7134186
Indian vegetarian

>>7134455
wot

>>7134393
their food wasn't impressive desu. Paella is nice, and the jamon was good as a snack but everything else seemed to be potatoes, meat, and depressing breads. Their wine also consistently smelled like sewage for some reason

I'd have to go for southeast asian

>>7134212
This
Then this>>7134314

File: everyday_indian_shit_menu.jpg (970KB, 2000x2504px) Image search: [Google]

970KB, 2000x2504px

>>7134459
Fixed that for you
That's the everyday indian shit menu.
Especially funny when they claim that chile peppers are native to india. Gotta love that utter bullshit kind of like their code.

>>7134212
>>7134269
>>7134309
OP here too clear things up. Yea that's a valid answer.
Just felt like USA basicly already has every cuisine in it's own, although slightly altered.

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned China or Thailand yet.

>>7134480

What region in China?

>>7134449

The book was written for "the lady of the house" in a wealthy family. It was not written for a middle class housewife. There aren't too many "housewives" who need to know how much to pay the boot-boy as opposed to the scullery maid, nor how to serve a 12-course meal for thirty guests filled with luxury ingredients.

>>7134474
>Just felt like USA basicly already has every cuisine in it's own, although slightly altered
Not in the least bit. It has a few Americanized Italian and Chinese dishes ant that's about it. You can't say Italian American cuisine is representative of Italian cuisine.

As a matter of fact there is more regional variation tin Indian, Chinese and Italian than the cuisine of any two places in America.

>>7134485
I can't say specificially, I'm not Chinese, but I can say that I've everything that I've had from there. It's got a wide variety of things, it's a large nation, like the USA.

What's interesting and that most people haven't tried are the old multi restaurants that used to be in NYC.I went to some of those when I was a little kid with family. They're both Italian and Chinese. There used to be a bunch of those in lower Manhattan.

File: Untitled.png (586KB, 540x404px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 540x404px

>>7134472
Dal, rice, flat breads, and vegetables are actually daily cuisine in India. And I love it all, and actually eat some type of simple Dal almost every day.

probably china. i fukken love tao's chicken and cali rolls.

Brazil

>>7134487
Ah, now I know why you've misunderstood the point I'm making: you're American.
And I don't mean that insultingly, just as a matter of fact. I've no problems with Amerifriends. Let me explain.

You've a misunderstanding of what 'middle class' meant in Victorian Britain because you're looking at it through modern US understanding of the term.

1) Beeton worked. Her husband worked. She's descended of people who work. She is, by definition, middle class and not aristocracy and therefore would not be familiar with the high cuisine enjoyed by the aristocracy of her day.

2) The elite/aristocracy of her day did not work and were wealthy exclusively through endowment and/or property ownership.

3) Yes, a middle-classed woman would need to know those things in Victorian England. That's what it meant to be middle-classed. You had one or two people on staff, but seldom-to-never the sort of thing employed by a great house (at least not until the Edwardian period).

You keep using words like 'wealthy' and 'fancy' and 'rich' throughout your posts as though they meant a damn in Victorian Britain. They didn't. Being moneyed was simply not enough to be part of the elite or aristocracy.
Unless they took part in the social season, which they simply couldn't due to not being part of that world, or learnt of it from some source or other, which is unlikely due to Tatler not debuting for another half century thereafter, the middle class just wouldn't know what the aristocracy do, least of which what Victorian aristocracy ate.

Beeton is not representative of high cuisine.

>>7134488
I think you're missing the point, but tbqh, I'm too lazy to state what the point is, so you get off free this time.

>>7134522
I just had a lunch of chicken w/ginger & scallion sauce.

>>7134545
I'm an American, I don't have to get off getting anything for free and I'm not a socialist asshat suckup to the EU or islam like you are in Englandistan. You might consider shutting the fuck up.

>>7134545
Of course you're too lazy to state anything succinctly, that's why we call you eurotards.

File: pussy_smasher.jpg (167KB, 825x825px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 825x825px

>>7134562

Yeah, totally Italy

>>7134186
Well I'm Italian so I guess Italian.

File: vlcsnap-00174.jpg (43KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1024x768px

>>7134565

>>7134488

>It has a few Italian and chinese dishes
>What is texmex
>what is new orleans
>what is wisconsin
>what is new england

This is bait

>>7134569
like we needed more proof italians are idiots.

Hungary

>>7134212
Replace iced tea with RC (just because I hate most tea) and we're good there.

File: file.png (436KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 450x450px

Japan

File: image.jpg (30KB, 283x424px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 283x424px

>>7134574

Since OP didn't exclude China, that's an easy pick, ridiculously good food and lots of variety. Viet or Japanese would be runner ups. Viet food is incredibly good as a whole, quite varied, lots of simple dishes and won't light your bowels on fire like Thai. Japanese isn't as flavorful as other cuisines but can be eaten over a long period of time, tons of umami, very healthy and lots of seafood, a great long-term choice

File: hitherewagecuck.jpg (487KB, 2432x4181px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 2432x4181px

american of course :^)

>>7134704
We thank our French friends for that.

File: image.jpg (210KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1500x1000px

>>7134737

>>7134186
Thai all the way. Healthy and tasty.

>>7134759
enjoy your ringburner :^)

>>7134816
I will. It makes the asshole stronger. Because enhanced circulation.

>>7134186
Greek, of course.

France. Definitely France.
But hey, I'm a JP fanboy, what can I say?

>>7134186
India. Lots more variety there than people realize from mediocre curry places.

>>7134186
The only good reason to take the US off the table would be because that country has such a wide mix of various cuisines from around the world, all jumbled together, so it wouldn't be a fair argument.
If it's for any other reason, you're just a faggot with a chip on your shoulder.

That said, my pick would be Burmese.

>>7134459
>>7134855
People who grow up on that diet tend to be short and scrawny. A cuisine is shit without meat.

Korean food gives me life.

>>7134857
>country has such a wide mix of various cuisines from around the world, all jumbled together, so it wouldn't be a fair argument.

But that's simply a collection of other cuisines. It's not "USA cuisine"; it's French plus German plus Mexican plus African plus.....you name it.

>>7134859
Poors tend to be short and scrawny from malnutrition, but the game wasn't that we had to have the most common food budget of the country, it was that we had to be limited to one cuisine.

And Indian meat dishes are fucking delicious.

>>7134864
Isn't that what makes it American?

>>7134864
After hundreds of years, this is how you wind up with a cuisine. Do you think any of those other countries are free of outside influences to their cooking? Tomatoes are not native to Italy, senpai.

And individual parts of the US have all kinds of dishes invented or significantly adapted there.

>>7134543
Could he mean "housekeeper" as opposed toa"housewife"? The housekeeper took care of things too beneath the attention of the lady of the house.

I've not the read the book, tho

File: 1285202022195.jpg (90KB, 630x463px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 630x463px

>>7134754
>>7134704

>>7134878
>I've not the read the book, tho
Clearly.

Why is it so hard to get that this actually means wife?

Indian or Italian.

Italian probably.

>>7134882

I giggled.

>>7134877
>After hundreds of years, this is how you wind up with a cuisine.

Right. But that hasn't happened in the US as of yet. It's simply too young of a country. There are Americanized versions of all those different foods: Americanized Chinese, American-Italian, Tex-Mex, and so on. But those aren't very far removed from their origins so I'd hesitate to say there is any one "American cuisine". It's not one cuisine yet. It's a list of distinct regional foods which are typically minor variations of wherever the immigrants in that area came from.

>>7134876

Sorry I wasn't very clear.

In my opinion there does not exist an "American Cuisine". Instead, we have a collection of multiple distinct cuisines from other countries.

Fucking Chinese man

That dim sum and buns cannot be beat

>>7134186
UK, we eat the same food anyway.

>>7134899

You don't understand, anon. The US is a unique example. Even with hundreds of years, it's very unlikely that there ever will be "American cuisine" in the sense that there is "French" or "Italian" cuisine.

The age of the country has little to do with anything. The United States is totally different beast from countries in Europe. As such, the food that immigrants bring with them becomes American cuisine - the food eaten by the people within the country, with what shifting trends there are, is American cuisine.

It's analogous to Chicken Tika Masala in the UK - but applied to an entire country.

>>7134543
>You've a misunderstanding of what 'middle class' meant in Victorian Britain because you're looking at it through modern US understanding of the term.

Not at all. I simply read the cookbook and drew conclusions. A very large part of the book has nothing to do with cooking at all. It discusses the pay scale, scheduling, and management of countless servants, etc. When it discusses menu planning the contents are obviously not for the average person: the number of courses, guests, and complexity of the dishes are clearly meant for entertaining, etc, rather than what one might call "home cooking".

>>Beeton worked. Her husband worked.
Sure. But what does the social status of the author have to do with the social status of the book's contents? Beeton did not write the recipes in the book. She was an editor--she compiled the information from other sources. Many of the recipes in the book are directly credited to members of the aristocracy who provided the recipes. There is content inside from baronesses, countesses, etc.

>> Yes, a middle-classed woman would need to know those things in Victorian England. That's what it meant to be middle-classed. You had one or two people on staff

Again, have you read the book? The 'family' (for lack of a better word) discussed in Beeton's consists of the Husband and Wife, who don't do any work themselves. There are not "one or two" people on staff, but literally dozens of different types of servants discussed, including their specific duties and pay. We're not talking about husband, housewife, and maybe a servant or two. I would run out of space in this post if I even attempted to describe the number and hierarchy of various maids, butlers, boys, and hands discussed in the household within.

While I fully agree that Beeton might not be representative of what the King ate, it is not typical of what the average Briton ate either.

>>7134921
>The US is a unique example. Even with hundreds of years, it's very unlikely that there ever will be "American cuisine" in the sense that there is "French" or "Italian" cuisine.

That was my point exactly.

>>The age of the country has little to do with anything
I disagree. The age between now and the point at which the country was colonized/developed determines how much time there is for cuisines to grow and change. The US was virtually a blank slate ~300 years ago. Since then we've had waves of immigration who brought their foods to the US, and those foods continue to be made with relatively minor changes.

>>As such, the food that immigrants bring with them becomes American cuisine - the food eaten by the people within the country, with what shifting trends there are, is American cuisine.

Here's where we disagree. Personally I don't think the food has changed enough to justify calling it "American Cuisine". It might be literally true in some aspie sort of way that "because the food is eaten in America therefore it is technically American cuisine", but I don't that means much.

>>It's analogous to Chicken Tika Masala in the UK - but applied to an entire country.

And again, while CTM might have been invented in England, it's not very far removed from Indian food. Heck, it's just a combination of Chicken Tikka with a Masala sauce added to it. The background of the dish is clearly Indian. It's a bit silly to call it "UK cuisine" simply because it was invented in England when the history of the dish, ingredients used, etc, are completely atypical to the UK.

>>7134931
No one said or even implied that what Beeton ate was what the average Victorian ate, only that it was not at all representative of British high cuisine.
No one said or implied that what Beeton ate or even what average Victorians ate or what the average modern Briton today eats was/is good.

All that was said was that Anon likes British high cuisine, that Beeton didn't know what British high cuisine was and that you've evidently missed the point of the original post by starting a stitch about a cookbook author who is at best only tangentially related to the original point made.

File: 16047.jpg (61KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 800x600px

>>7134954

>Personally I don't think the food has changed enough to justify calling it "American Cuisine".

Because you're working off of semantics that just don't apply to American food. I'm not claiming that because it's eaten in the US, it's American cuisine, however - I should have made that more clear.

What I'm saying is that immigrants often change their food to fit American ingredients and tastes. Tex-Mex has absolutely nothing to do with Sonora or other types of Mexican food. It uses some similar ingredients, but it just isn't Mexican in any way.

Let's use another example. The Sonoran Hotdog, very popular in the Mexican states near the US border. Is this "Mexican" cuisine?

>>7134960
>, only that it was not at all representative of British high cuisine.

which is missing the point entirely.

the original claim was the British cooking earned a bad reputation because of rationing.

I countered that by pointing out that even decades beforehand Mrs. Beeton's makes the claim that British food had a poor reputation.

Beeton's might not describe what Royalty ate, but so what? It's clearly as good if not better than what the VAST majority of Britons ate.

Lebanese probably. Fucking delicious food culture.

>>7134973
>Because you're working off of semantics that just don't apply to American food.

I'm glad we agree.

>>The Sonoran Hotdog, very popular in the Mexican states near the US border. Is this "Mexican" cuisine?

I must admit that I know nothing of that dish so I don't really feel qualified to answer. But given that it contains a "hot dog"--which has nothing whatsoever to do with mexico--I'd say no, it's not Mexican food.

Greek

probably Japan, as so many of there dishes actually have influences or are just different takes on other nations cuisines

>>7134978
No. The original point was
>high British cuisine never felt that belt-tightening [of rationing]
and that it's good and a separate beast altogether from common Brit cuisine.

File: 1430772680306.jpg (459KB, 1450x1036px) Image search: [Google]

459KB, 1450x1036px

Japanese food.
That also include modern Japanese food such as ハンバーグ & ピザ

Probably Korean, I could eat Bibimbap every day.

>>7135127

How is high British cuisine relevant to the thread at all? Nobody is talking about high cuisine except you. It's only enjoyed by the elite and therefore completely irrelevant to a discussion of a country's cuisine in general.

What does any of your rambling have to do with the fact that British cuisine had a documented poor reputation decades before wartime rationing?
What doe sth

>>7134186
id have to say either japan or india based off the general health of their traditional dishes and their variety of flavors and food culture in general.

Yeah, italian food - best choice. Lmist like burgers, but you can call it healthy. Who cares about fat ass. Indian (and jap/oceanic) food is the healthiest AND most tasty kitchen in the world. And best for sex mood ok? But yes yes italians conquered the world so we musy praise their kitchen sure

>>7134459
very healthy and flavorful as vegetarian cuisines go, also with their variety of spices it doesnt get old. awesome

>>7134460
I believe they're saying that only the poorest of the poor can be that naive about social classes and money situations

>>7134521
i need to stock up on some good dal from an indian food store, the only things regularly available at the grocery are red lentils and the brown ones with the shell, and they dont cook up very nicely. the yellow ones are supposed to be great texturally though

>>7134620
oh good, from the thumbnail I thought that was some disgusting ass mayo rice that the japs love to gobble up, I don't get their obsession with mayonnaise and cheese on shit where it doesn't fit. katsu don is excellent though

>>7134872
indian meals are also pretty balanced nutritionally, and the best part is with all the spice varieties you really dont get bored.

>>7134921
>>7134899
even ignoring the fact that US is a melting pot of foods, there are still totally unique dishes to the US, pretty much all of southern barbecue is a US thing. doesn't matter if some of the ingredients aren't from the US, there is a bit of inspiration from spain and such, but it's a purely american dish. Louisiana creole as well, while obviously reminiscent of some spanish foods and various european foods, is a US cuisine.

>>7134904
Well your opinion is wrong and stupid

>>7134212
This.

Southern food all the way.

Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to bread and or deep fry your proteins, and smoked / BBQ proteins are about as healthy as any other way of preparing them, but more tasty.

>>7134991
>But given that it contains a "hot dog"--which has nothing whatsoever to do with mexico--I'd say no, it's not Mexican food.
So then any Italian dish that uses the tomato is not Italian.

>dingus logic

>>7135156
>no one's talking about high british cuisine except you
Exactly the point, Anon.
See, I brought up high British cuisine/British high cuisine in the first place, in my first post in this thread when I posted to say that I like high British cuisine/British high cuisine because this is a thread about what cuisines you'd be happy eating the rest of your life and I responded "high British cuisine/British high cuisine" because high British cuisine/British high cuisine is what cuisine I would pick were I asked what I would be okay eating for the rest of my life and what I'd prefer is "high British cuisine/British high cuisine," yes.
Then some diatribe about Mrs. Beeton started that was only tangentially related to the original point, which was (once again), that if I had to choose to eat only one cuisine for the rest of my life, I would choose high British cuisine/British high cuisine because I like high British cuisine/British high cuisine and would enjoy eating high British cuisine/British high cuisine forever because high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good. Also, did I mention that I like high British cuisine/British high cuisine? It's really rather nice. high British cuisine/British high cuisine, I mean. It's quite good.

see >>7134309
>Seriously, British high cuisine is top notch as is some of their errday food.
Then the reply to >>7134309, which was >>7134329 which said
>i read mrs beeton's and the food was bad and she was totally part of society and stuff
which doesn't address (say it with me know) high British cuisine/British high cuisine because she wasn't part of the world of high British cuisine/British high cuisine.
Now, I will just post the phrase "high British cuisine/British high cuisine" over and over until I run out of space:
high British cuisine/British high cuisine high British cuisine/British high British cuisine/British high cuisine high British cuisine/British high cuisine high British cuisine/British high cuisine

>>7134430
hell, I could live off of canadian chinese food alone, canadian it is

Texmex

>>7135210

It's a matter of time, Anon. The hot dog thing that was mentioned above doesn't count because it's such a new development. If they're still serving them in 300 years then sure, it's Mexican.

The Italians have had tomatoes since 1548. That's plenty long enough to consider them their own.

>>7135246
So 300 years is the standard?

>>7134864
>It's not "USA cuisine"; it's French plus German plus Mexican plus African plus.....you name it.

That's the way EVERY cuisine is in any nation that's ever had an active trade system.

Noodles are from China, and yet they're associated with Italy as much as they are with China.
Potatoes are from south America, and yet they're an integral part of a lot of different European cuisines.
Chili peppers are also from south America, and now they're associated with not only American, but Asian cuisine as well.

Everybody steals from everybody. Always have, and always will.

>>7135249

Nope. A figure of speech. I know this place is known for aspies, but geez....

>>7135224

But nobody replied to your rambling about high class cuisine. We're not talking about that.

People replied to your comment about rationing.

>>7135251
Then what time amount of time? I personally don't think time is necessary to consider a dish as part of a country's cuisine. You however think so.

I'd saying Japanese without missing a beat if not for a lack of knowledge about what kinds of sausages they produce. Sausages are the absolute best food to me.

>>7135256
What the fuck?

>>7135250
>Everybody steals from everybody. Always have, and always will.

Agreed. But IMHO there is a fundamental difference between taking a dish and thoroughly changing it over hundreds of years as opposed to taking a dish and putting a little twist on it.

>>Noodles are from China....
Yes. And a typical Italian pasta dish is very different from a typical Chinese noodle dish. When noodles were first introduced to Italy I wouldn't call that "Italian" at all. But as time progressed and the dish evolved the Italians made it their own.

Same with the potatoes, peppers, and so on.

IMHO the distinction between those examples and most "American" food is the amount of change involved as well as the influence of other traditional foods.

For example, Indian and Central American cuisines both use chili peppers, sure. But the dishes are very different and both have their local influences. But, say, American-Italian food isn't really that much different than actual Italian food, and it really doesn't have any sort of "American" influence. Compare that to, say, an Indian curry containing chili peppers. Yeah they got the chilis from the Americas but otherwise the dish is still Indian.

It's a matter of degree. In America the foods are still mostly the same as their foreign origins, there really isn't much "Americanization" going on, and there simply doesn't exist much in the way of old traditions. In the rest of the world you find traditional foods which have been made in the same manner for centuries if not longer, and those foods are really part of the cultural identity of those nations. Wine in France, Jamon in Spain, Soy products in various parts of Asia, Cheese in Europe, etc, etc. That sort of thing doesn't really exist in the US to anywhere near the same degree.

>>7135285
What do you not understand?

>>7135256
>Then what time amount of time?

I'm not sure it's possible to answer that with a specific number. The point is not mathematical exactness, but rather to say that the food needs to have some sort of strong association or history with the country in order for it to be considered that country's cuisine.

>> I personally don't think time is necessary to consider a dish as part of a country's cuisine

So what is the criteria in your opinion? Popularity? Geographical location of the food at the time it was consumed? I'm not trying to be rude, just genuinely curious.

>>7135253
>no one's replying to the point you made about high British cuisine/British high cuisine!!!
Correct.
That's why mentioning Beeton's when someone says they like high British cuisine/British high cuisine is a barely related tangent.

It's like someone saying "I like classic Italian cuisine" and someone else replying "Chef Boyardee is bad." The two are tangentially related at best.

>>7135303

Nobody mentioned Beeton's because of "high class".

Beeton's was mentioned because of "rationing".

You are aware that people can reply to part of your post and not the whole thing, right?

You made two points:
1) You like high class british cuisine
>that's nice. nobody is arguing with you about that.

2) Rationing was responsible for British cuisine's poor reputation
>Nope.jpg, that's wrong. British cuisine had a bad rap well before rationing.

>>7134186
The U.S. definitely. Southern food, American Chinese, Chicano Mexican food. Fucking delicious.

>>7135378
Except pre-war WW2, british cuisine was seen as being pretty great, even before WW1, it had a distinction of being good.

So you're wrong.

>>7134488
Have you never heard of New England and southern food? You're painfully ignorant.

>>7135378
You're being disingenuous and, again: it's a tangent. The original & central point was that high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good.

Then someone started a tangent about rationing because my first post mentioned it in passing. The tangent centres around Beeton & attempts to pass her off as the cornerstone of high British cuisine/British high cuisine, which she simply is not.
The rightful response to that tangent was to point out that Beeton is irrelevant to high British cuisine/British high cuisine altogether & examples from her book one may try to use to refute the point made that high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good are irrelevant as her book does not cover high British cuisine/British high cuisine.

So after several posts trying futilely to prove her relevance to the original point (high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good), an attempt to disingenuinely shift focus from that was made by saying
>lol i never said she had anything to do with high British cuisine/British high cuisine in the first place!!!
Which is a lie.

>>7134329
>she's wealthy!
>she's wealthy!
>she has servants!

Then >>7134390
>>aristocracy!!!

Followed by >>7134487
>servants!!!
>12 course meals!!!
>30 guests!!!
>luxury goods!!!

And so on.
That's clearly trying to make the case that Beeton is relevant to the original point (that high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good), when she very, very clearly is not relevant to that point because her book was never meant for the people who would regularly eat high British cuisine/British high cuisine.

So trying to present the original point as anything other than
>high British cuisine/British high cuisine is good.
and that
>nobody is arguing with [me] about that.
is disingenuous because that's what the original argument was (high British cuisine/British high cuisine can't be good because Beeton!). It only shifted after it was shown that Beeton is wholly irrelevant.

>>7135293
I pretty much agree with you except I don't think it needs a strong association or history with the country or needs to have been consumed for a long time

>>7134472
>Especially funny when they claim that chile peppers are native to india.
They have been very popular for 300 years and are a big part of the cuisine, that's longer than America has existed. Black pepper is native to India and was used before chillies came around.

>>7135395
>>7134586
I was giving those two as examples of how only a few dishes from every cuisine make it through. The claim from the guy was that every cuisine is well represented in the US.

One of the non-EU European countries, so I can finally lose weight from not eating their shitty food.

japan
italy
canada

>>7134186
Good question. Portuguese, Bolivian or Sibirian.

>>7134186
>USA as a whole is off the table.

Fuck you. Fine, I pick Canada :^)

india

>>7134459

was also thinking Indian because it's so broad varied but the same goes for Chinese

Italian I guess.

British

>Roast dinner (chicken or beef)
>Savory pies
>Bangers and (mustard) mash with onion gravy
>Lancashire hotpot
>Full breakfast
>Fish and chips with mushy peas and tartar sauce
>Victoria sponge
>Scones with clotted cream and jam
>All the other pastries
>All the cheeses

>>7134186
Spain

>>7134309
>ploughman's lunch
>Chip butty
>pickle sandwich
>spotted dick
>curry
Wow such high cuisine

>>7135143
Cozy

File: computer-reaction-face-knife-stab-self-eye.png (123KB, 675x443px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 675x443px

>>7134186

>USA is off the table

File: soviet-space-shuttle.jpg (81KB, 1116x659px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1116x659px

>>7134882
Don't forget that old Soviet space shuttle, the Buran, it just happened to look exactly like ours but never flew.

File: US_Space_Shuttle-v-Soviet_Space_Shuttle.jpg (44KB, 356x240px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 356x240px

>>7136094

>>7134186
Japanese or Chinese, no contest.

>>7134186
Anything from eastern Asia. I gobble that shit up like a jew straight outta Auschwitz.

>>7134186
Italy or china

>>7134186
thailand desu

>>7136112
Clearly because they didn't use an orange booster in the middle.

Russian or German

Italian food is nice, but too much carb. French is fantastic nowadays.

Northern Spain, no doubt.

>>7134186
Mh. I'm Italian but I am not choosing Italian or any other Yuropoors cuisine, too easy.

Mexico would be a good idea. As far as the US goes probably California or Texas (With a sprinkle of tex mex and mexican proper in there).
For Africa I'd go with Morocco. Middle east is tie between Lebanon and Judenland. For Asia I pick Nippon :D
Fuck Oceania.

File: pho ingredients.jpg (121KB, 800x527px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 800x527px

thai or pic related.

>>7139667
chinese and that includes real chinese food.

Northern Chinese style. My wife is from heilongjiang region near Harbin. Noodles, hotpot and dumplings please

File: IMG_20150823_001253.jpg (926KB, 1836x1836px) Image search: [Google]

926KB, 1836x1836px

>>7141084
Same anon. I'm actually life leaving for China on December 26 for 3 weeks. My wife and I are having our Chinese wedding and I'll be near Harbin for most of that time freezing my balls off. Looking foward to drinking beer and eating food and just experiencing China

Spain

>>7139667

oh yeah bby

though the thought of living without mexican food and japanese food makes me suicidal

French cuisine to be honest

>>7141100
lucky. i want to go to china but my family would never go for it. they like disney. the most traveling i did was wyoming. its all nice but i really want to see all kinds of places.

>>7134472
underrated post desu

>>7134186
british.

Just because the most popular dishes are bland, doesn't change the fact that half of what you can order in an 'Indian' is shit invented in britain.