The other day, I was watching a documentary about World War - 1. although, many things were known and some unknown. I am not the one who is interested in numbers, it was a great loss for the world. Almost an entire generation was wiped out. I am not here to discuss about the losses but to make sense of somethings which keep on lingering on my mind.
When they speak about the English food, they always say it is bland - no taste, whatsoever - except baked potatoes and roasted meat. This is noticed not only amongst the rich but also for the poor.
Ironically, that is one of the ways they managed for survival during their World War days. Government rationed the food, so that everyone gets to eat. Another reason being, all sea routes were blocked by German U-boats, import was becoming difficult and so was food. The good thing is both rich and poor did participate to face the situation as one!!! (Or it seems to be!!!!)
So, is it good to assume that the bland English food is an outcome of Great Leadership during those times?
On the contrary, this kind of rationing was not undertaken any other region of Europe. They cherished their food but in the end had to switch from meat to tulips and lost lot of farms, farmers and farmlands.
If I am wrong in my conclusions, then the other school of thought goes to the situation during those times. England has a colony in almost every corner of the world. they might have definitely bought some good cuisines / specialties back from these colonies. It is difficult to change but impossible to resist to the food for a long time.
So, again is it right to assume that they went back to their original feed habits? And this time everyone was treated equal - rich and poor????
Comments are welcome...
When they speak about the English food, they always say it is bland - no taste, whatsoever - except baked potatoes and roasted meat. This is noticed not only amongst the rich but also for the poor.
Ironically, that is one of the ways they managed for survival during their World War days. Government rationed the food, so that everyone gets to eat. Another reason being, all sea routes were blocked by German U-boats, import was becoming difficult and so was food. The good thing is both rich and poor did participate to face the situation as one!!! (Or it seems to be!!!!)
So, is it good to assume that the bland English food is an outcome of Great Leadership during those times?
On the contrary, this kind of rationing was not undertaken any other region of Europe. They cherished their food but in the end had to switch from meat to tulips and lost lot of farms, farmers and farmlands.
If I am wrong in my conclusions, then the other school of thought goes to the situation during those times. England has a colony in almost every corner of the world. they might have definitely bought some good cuisines / specialties back from these colonies. It is difficult to change but impossible to resist to the food for a long time.
So, again is it right to assume that they went back to their original feed habits? And this time everyone was treated equal - rich and poor????
Comments are welcome...
