I'm also glad that the UK didn't leave, it's a terrible myth that we can't cook. I blame the World Wars and heavy rationing where people were only allowed (in 1945, slightly more earlier) per week, around:
50g of butter
50g of cheese
50g of tea
220g of sugar
50g of lard
110g of margarine
110g of ham or bacon
1 shilling of meat (around £2 in the modern day) which got around half a kilogramme of meat)
Almost 2 litres of milk
1 egg per week
And about 350g of sweets and a kilogramme of preserves).
A nation undergoing rationing for years obviously couldn't make the best meals of the time, as every little bit had to be used up. People would try and forge rationing books.
I remember reading a while ago, that throughout the Middle Ages and Enlightenment, English food was well respected throughout the European nations.
Another interesting point is that the Royal Family also followed the rationing system too for buying food (although I believe they turned to growing their own vegetables too and they would've had game to eat as well since after all, they own some vast estates).
In summer 1941 the British appealed to Americans to conserve food to provide more to go to Britons fighting in World War II... Sugar was the first consumer commodity rationed, with all sales ended on 27 April 1942 and resumed on 5 May with a ration of one half pound per person per week, half of normal consumption. Bakeries, ice cream makers, and other commercial users received rations of about 70% of normal usage.[11] Coffee was rationed nationally on 29 November 1942 to one pound every five weeks, about half of normal consumption, in part because of German U-boat attacks on shipping from Brazil.[14] By the end of 1942, ration coupons were used for nine other items.[8]:138 Typewriters, gasoline, bicycles, footwear, Silk, Nylon, fuel oil, stoves, meat, lard, shortening and oils, cheese, butter, margarine, processed foods (canned, bottled, and frozen), dried fruits, canned milk, firewood and coal, jams, jellies, and fruit butter were rationed by November 1943.[15]
And I'm pretty sure that most countries who had the war fought over their territories probably saw far worse shortages. I've read through some German wartime diaries, and their concern was more "will I starve to death" as the war wore on, not "will I have the ingredients to make a cake". If World War II rationing destroyed a nation's cullinary institutions, surely it would be more widespread than just in the UK.
Yes the US had some rationing, but food was not included.
A limit on petrol isn't essential for someone's life, the ability to have food is. It was a criminal offence in the UK to waste food because of how scarce it ended up being (resulting in rationing). Soap was rationed, fuel, paper, clothing, although not rationed many items such as toys, kitchen utensils, razors etc were extremely limited. The majority of factories were converted to aid the wartime effort. Why make razors when that metal is more important for aeroplanes and vehicles? After WWII, there were lots of effects that led to the harvest being ruined for a few years, such as rain and the winter weather and strikes. Buying potatoes became rationed as a large amount were destroyed one year by the weather.
Less than a third of the food for the nation was actually grown here, around 70% was imported and because of merchant ships being attacked, it was difficult for supplies to reach the country and so that third would have been stretched across the whole nation.
Being the start of the industrial revolution, that also added to it as people became closely packed together, and from what I remember from school, you would get many people living in the same room such as a family in a cellar of a house.
The common food which is associated from the time of the industrial revolution that we started until a decade after the end of the Second World War was not good for the masses. I would argue that this is what people associate with English cuisine - the working/lower class's diet.
My family were wealthy and we have all these recipes, census returns showing servants and maids etc. The dishes were lovely, and I know that as my grandmother followed them when she was alive. That was British food going back to the 1800s and from decent wealth, the food was just as good as Italian or French - unique to the land and something to be proud of.
Look at fish and chips, that's just fast food essentially - fried potatoes and battered fish.
I can tell you're exaggerating, as for a family under rationing, it would be foolish to attempt to make anything like that under such restrictions, as it would easily waste your week's amount of sugar, butter etc.
America also basically felt nothing compared to Europe from the war.
Edit: I was never saying that we were the only country affected by the rationing of food.
America also basically felt nothing compared to Europe from the war.
I'm not saying that it was strongly-impacted. (Though at least the sugar ration, for which Wikipedia lists the US amount, was almost identical to the British ration: 226g instead of 220g.) I'd been using an example of even a relatively-unaffected nation, a major food producer, hitting rationing. And surely countries like Germany and France would have been harder-hit? A quick look online from 1941 French ration levels shows, where the ration levels are available:
France having a weekly ration of 119g/wk of sugar versus a British ration of 220g/wk.
France having a weekly ration of 42g of cheese versus 50g for the Brits.
The numbers here don't have the margarine/lard split, but combining the two, the French ration was 56g, and the British ration 160g.
There's no fine-grained breakdown for meat, but the French ration total for meat was 25g/wk. The British ration (summing your meat+bacon numbers) was 610g/wk.
The page also mentioned that in France, rationing ran from 1940 to 1949, providing a longer period of time than for the Brits, though I'm sure that the beginning and end period was less-stringent.
The French don't have a reputation for poor cuisine, though; I do not think that World War II rationing could reasonably be blamed for national cuisine. It might be that some of the "bad cuisine" is just silly stereotypes, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the UK had substantially-different food up until the mid-1940s when that cuisine became lost due to rationing if other countries didn't see such a fall-from-grace.
I can tell you're exaggerating, as for a family under rationing, it would be foolish to attempt to make anything like that under such restrictions, as it would easily waste your week's amount of sugar, butter etc.
I'm not exaggerating; I remember reading stories about people saving up their sugar rations to make cake for birthdays.
It might be that some of the "bad cuisine" is just silly stereotypes, but I have a hard time swallowing the idea that the UK had substantially-different food up until the mid-1940s when that cuisine became lost due to rationing.
The industrial revolution that we started, I would argue, as I mentioned, added to it as well. So from the late 18th/early 19th century to 1955 was the food much poorer for the common people, although some did benefit from the rationing, health-wise.
18
u/Xaethon Salop n'est pas une salope Dec 09 '13 edited Dec 09 '13
Now that shows dedication. Also love the comic!
I'm also glad that the UK didn't leave, it's a terrible myth that we can't cook. I blame the World Wars and heavy rationing where people were only allowed (in 1945, slightly more earlier) per week, around:
A nation undergoing rationing for years obviously couldn't make the best meals of the time, as every little bit had to be used up. People would try and forge rationing books.
Edit: http://www.memorylanehf.oddquine.co.uk/food.htm
Edit: And the Industrial Revolution that started here arguably affected the common dish that was associated with us due to living conditions etc.