So the bit about UK food being attrocious is unfortunately true from my limited experience but the country itself has a lot of beauty, I think, as long as you look in the roght places.
There's this quote from Andy Warhol that I think has great explanatory power:
> What's great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca-Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca-Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca-Cola, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.
The UK has the exact opposite of this. Everything that's for sale here is finely graded according to the buyer's budget and taste. Where someone chooses to do something as innocuous as their grocery shopping in the UK says an awful lot about them.
If you visit the UK without an awareness of all these little class indicators, you'll probably find yourself frequenting establishments that target the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, because discretion is highly valued by those at the top. There is truly excellent food to be had here - British cheeses win more international awards than French ones, for example - but if you don't know where to find the good stuff, you'll end up getting the slop the lower orders have to put up with.
> The UK has the exact opposite of this. Everything that's for sale here is finely graded according to the buyer's budget and taste. Where someone chooses to do something as innocuous as their grocery shopping in the UK says an awful lot about them.
Just sayin', I went shopping in... Denver? Let's just say that there was a mall with a bunch of shops and further down the street another bunch of shops.
The public at Nordstrom was wildly different than at the Gap which was also different than the one at Ross.
Similar story for stuff like Walmart versus Whole Foods.
The US has a lot of social stratification, too. They just like to ignore those parts, especially in their advertising.
In Watching the English, Kate Fox gives a thorough explanation of how much she can pin down someone's social class by what they buy at Marks and Spencers (which is a department store that's branched out into groceries). I forget the exact details, but I think it was that doing a full food shop there made you upper-middle class, buying some food items there made you middle-middle class, and buying food items for special occasions there made you lower-middle class. Buying clothes from M&S makes you middle-middle class, and buying homewares makes you lower-middle class. The upper class don't shop at M&S at all, and the working class only buy clothes or homewares from there if they want something special. (I think - it was a while ago that I read it.) And that's just one shop.
Everywhere does social stratification, but nowhere does it like Britain.
'Watching the English' is nearly 40 years old now and a lot of things have changed. M&S is no longer hugely more expensive than other stores, for food I think Waitrose has taken its place.
Also this article is veering into the idea that class is all about money, which may work in the US but is far from being true in the UK.
There is an updated version by the way. Don't know if that bit has been updated.
I still think doing your whole food shop at M&S is 'higher class' than doing it at Waitrose, but it's weird because of the M&S Simply Food shops which are more geared I think to somebody in a city buying a day or two's food.
And you are right, class is much much more complicated than just money :-)
Honestly the focus on financial stratification here highlights the differences between what class means in the UK and the US.
In the US class distinction is (almost) entirely down to money. If you’re rich you can buy nicer things than someone poorer and so you can be immediately sorted into a higher social class.
In the UK just because you’re rich that doesn’t make you upper class. British society is riddled with subtle dress coding, language, and social cues designed to trip people up and differentiate the nouveau riche from the real old money aristocracy.
This is generally true but not entirely. The UK like most other countries is becoming more like the US (think tech tycoons, celebrities, 'influencers'). And the US has always had some pockets with similar (though less rigid) class distinctions (think WASPs and places like Martha's vineyard, parts of New England and 'old' New York, many parts of the South).
True, but even in the UK, I imagine that once you have the money, the next generation will be integrated, if you want to. You'll live in the right neighborhood, your kids will go to the right schools, problem solved.
It's just slower and doesn't include you directly, true.
Oh no, 'climbing the greasy pole' takes at least three generations. The 'right neighbourhood' is itself a complicated concept, because the working and middle classes in the UK live cheek-by-jowl. I live in a street of rundown Victorian working-class houses that are so close to each other and the street that everyone has net curtains in their windows to stop passers-by from seeing in, but from my bedroom window I can see into the back gardens of the comfortable 1930s middle-class houses in the next street, which have leafy front gardens to provide privacy. As for schools, much of the middle-middle class and all of the upper-middle and upper class pay fees to educate their children at private schools, some of which charge more than a software engineer's salary in annual fees.
Having money doesn’t easily buy you a hereditary lordship. You might be able to buy a load of land but probably not a prestigious ancient estate because the families that own them would usually rather let them fall into disrepair than sell them.
Money will buy your kids a place in prestigious public (read: private) school so they can rub shoulders with upper class kids and have connections when they grow up. But those upper class friends will always know that you and your kids are really just jumped up middle class since your great great great great grandfather wasn’t the Duke of Norfolk or some such.
For reference Kate Middleton’s family are wealthy multi-millionaires, and have been wealthy going back to the 19th century. When she married Prince William the press still waxed lyrical about the fact that the Prince of Wales was marrying a “commoner”.
Really the only rock solid way to wash away the middle class stink from your kids is to marry into the real top level of the upper class.
Do you know of some examples of dress, language, or social cues? Would it be possible to 'fake it' do you think?
I find it fascinating that being viewed as nuveau riche is a bad thing or 'lesser than' old money, when the money all buys the same access and privilege.
In the states we have New England waspy types that have families that go back to the mayflower or whatever. But it's pretty easy to ingrain yourself in their small society (as long as you have assloads of money), and flat out lie about your background if needed. I'm wondering if it's the same in the UK or not.
You can't fake your way into the upper class in the UK, because they all know each other already. As for behaviour, dress and speech, the standard books are:
* Noblesse Oblige[0] Mostly about vocabulary, and very outdated (1950s)
* The English Gentleman[1] Only about aristocratic men, and comedic in style
* Class: A View from Middle England (Jilly Cooper) Very 1970s
* Watching the English[2] Not specifically about social class, but class comes up a lot.
Yeah people forget that Sushi was once considered very adventurous to most people, and than a huge percentage of American men only first experienced hot sauce as Tabasco sauce in the army. Other than ethic enclaves I think the American palette was historically considered pretty underdeveloped.
Not sure where you've been eating, but even Birmingham—my unfashionable British hometown—has nine Michelin star restaurants within a short drive.
I grew up in the UK but I've lived for 15 years all over the US, and it's always confused me that Americans are convinced that British food is bad. On a whole, British supermarkets have far better produce, in both quality and diversity. UK restaurants run the gamut from cutting edge fine dining and wonderful traditional food to home-grown variants of immigrant cuisine. It's a great place to eat.
My home town is legendary for Indian restaurants—to the extent that Birmingham-style Balti curries have made their way back to India. Before you claim that this is Indian food, not British, can you name an American dish that wasn't developed by immigrants?
Home cooking is far more popular in the UK than the US: anecdotally, most British people cook most meals at home, while few of my American friends know how to boil an egg and rely almost entirely on take-out. British celebrity chefs and cooking shows are famous worldwide. It's odd to claim that British food sucks while binge-watching our prime-time baking show!
I love America and a lot of things are better over here, but food—unfortunately for me—is not one of them.
When I read comments like yours I wonder how you define "all over the US." Obviously, that is nowhere near enough time to experience the breadth of culture that spans the US, so I'm guessing just a few specific locations. It's the only explanation I can come up with for your generalizations being completely opposed to my experience (and I've spent more like 50 years living all over the US...).
FWIW, I'd say that while Gordon Ramsey is a good cook, obviously, he's a celebrity because he's hilarious. That is definitely something I will give credit to the British for.
I've lived in California, Montana, Washington, and South Carolina (my home for the past few years). I've spent a ton of time with family in the Midwest and the Ozarks. So not everywhere, but a good cross section!
I'm not sure I made a generalization about America besides the quality and diversity of supermarket food, and an anecdote about how many of my friends cook at home.
> can you name an American dish that wasn't developed by immigrants?
I consider Tex-Mex as American and home grown. It also depends on your definition of "immigrants" since that path looks different everywhere (and across time). Texas was at one time Mexico (and even its own country plus a few others). But tortillas, beans, corn, cornbread are Native American. Many have simply lived here through generations and name changes.
I would also argue for BBQ[0]. I had to double check, but according to that wiki page it was from the Taíno who had inhabited Puerto Rico, which is part of America; which was acquired by Columbus, then brought to the mainland by the Spanish. Since Texas was a part of Spain for some time, there is a case to be made that the dish was not by immigrants if looked at from that angle.
Which all sounds very similar to Britain, repeatedly settled or invaded over thousands of years by people who left their unique mark on our cuisine and culture, from the Roman conquest to much more recent days.
> repeatedly settled or invaded over thousands of years
The difference with Tex-Mex is that its foundational items are Native American, so the distinction, imo, is that the main ingredients and how they are used is from America. Even though the Americas were populated by pacific islanders/Asians, no one would call Tex-Mex Asian food.
I don't know a lot about the making of Indian food, but I have not yet heard the argument that the base ingredients/spices and how they are used come from the British Isles. That's how I would "draw the line" in determining if it's British or Indian food.
That said, the best Indian food I have had was in London
Indian food uses lots of chilies, peppers, tomatoes, and potatoes—which are all native to the Americas, and were brought to Asia by European traders in the early modern period.
So while I see your point, I wouldn't say a cuisine is always "from" the same place as its ingredients.
I think the trope is that British cuisine, that is, dishes that are uniquely British, are bad. Not that there isn’t good food there. Being a rich country, an empire, and part of Europe means you can have many, many different cuisines there though, and like you said many are very good.
Requiring something to be "uniquely British" to count as British cuisine seems like a pretty high bar. Are burgers and apple pie "uniquely American"? Not sure – and who even cares?
You’re right, and that’s not the bad I meant to set. More like cuisine that is associated with Britain. So not a French restaurant that happens to be in London.
My Romanian grandma, born in the 1920s, that never traveled more than 100km from her birthplace and never saw even the Black Sea, would beg to differ :-p
I highly doubt that my almost illiterate grandma, that grew up in interwar Romania and lived afterwards behind the Iron Curtain, discovered apple pie through American media :-))
It's a trope for sure, but it doesn't really make sense: a lot of American dishes are traditional British foods. Roast dinners with stuffing and gravy, apple pie, pancakes, biscuits/scones, fried fish and potatoes, meat pies. Thanksgiving dinner is an ancient British harvest feast with some New World ingredients; Christmas dinner is the same format.
And since most American food has also made its way to the UK, there's really not a great deal of difference.
Depends greatly on where you are. London is great for food. I can see how someone from say, France or Spain, would find the average standard of food in the UK as a whole to be pretty bad. However, when this kind of critique comes from the other side of the pond I am a bit baffled, as food quality also tends to decline precipitously outside of major cities in the US (with exceptions, obviously).
I don't agree; find better places to eat. I for one loved the steak & kidney pie with a guiness I had after hiking a mountain. Don't take sad Wetherspoons food as an indicator of British food.
This is like concluding that Japanese food is terrible because the idea of eating raw fish grosses you out. (Also, it's "steak and kidney pie" as a unit, not a steak accompanied by a "kidney pie".)
Sure but as I said, there’s nothing particularly British about using kidneys as ingredients. You wouldn’t conclude that French cuisine is unappetizing because some French dishes include them.
That's out of date. It was popular for a while. According to YouGov it's Fish and Chips again now. Which was based on something Jewish (and fairly different) but I think we can claim it now.
