Skip to main content

choose your team and grab your fork


a small handful of you may remember that back in 2006, i inaugurated a weird little tradition that became my way of celebrating the world cup. if you want to read more about it, you can find most of it here, but also a little bit here. i called it "eat the cup" and it proved to be a lot of fun (although somewhat exhausting and, due to an ill-advised attempt to cook beets in 30C heat, a little stinky).

four years hence, i'vev decided that i'm up for tackling the challenges of global cuisine once again. basically, the challenge is this: every day of the cup, i will pick one of the winning teams and that night i will cook a meal featuring the cuisine of that country. the idea is that i try to go as long as i can without repeating a country. (given that teams advance by winning multiple times, however, this is nearly impossible.) in the interests of preserving some of my beleaguered brain cells, i am going to allow myself to repeat some dishes from last time, but i'm also going to try to avoid it where possible. (ok, who am i kidding? i am not going to try to hard to avoid making a moqueca if- when- brazil wins a game.)

unlike last time, i am going to try to pick the game i'll cook from (on days where there are multiples) in advance. i'll hold myself to cooking the winner (i know that's not good grammar, but i couldn't resist the way it reads), but in the case of a tie, i'm going make myself cook something that combines the cuisine of both countries. this could get weird.

i highly encourage anyone with culinary interests to attempt this, since it's not only a way to figure out the answer to the question "what do you want for dinner tonight?", but it can also be a great learning experience once you get into a type of cuisine that's really outside your normal realm of experience.

that's all for now. you'll hear more from me on the subject on june 11th, when i'll be preparing a menu that's south african, mexican, french or uruguayan. may the tastiest team win!

(special thanks to dom for his help with that groovy image)

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
If you have a need for some suggestion or inspiration, feel very free to contact me and brainstorm. I can devise of improvise as needed ;)

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…