UB Libraries Book Group discussion

Hey All --
Susan will lead our discussion of this title starting the week of May 22.

Also, we never scheduled a title for June so how about we meet in person instead to chat about what else we have been reading and to start planning for next year? I know there are a few conferences in June to schedule around so I'll send out an email and doodle poll soon.
Thanks!

Sounds good. Thanks Kathy!

That would be very nice.
Becky

Hi, I'm new to the group discussion feature so I started a thread from the wrong place yesterday and I have no idea where it went! Hopefully this post will make it to the group. One of the fascinating parts of the book was the inclusion of some recipes from the time. Does anyone think they'll try any? Or do the recipes sound familiar?

I am not a cook, but I did read through most of the recipes. I found them interesting in terms of the simple ingredients and very few spices. Would our modern palates even be able to taste some of these dishes?

I seem to remember mention of the fact that the lack of taste was deliberate. Food was being viewed as simply there for subsistence, rather than enjoyment, presumably due to the short supplies. I noticed this too in some war-time shows I watched, like Home Fires on PBS. Set in WWII, but some of the same food issues apply.

I heard about this book on NPR--I think it may have been a Fresh Air interview with the authors. I was attracted to the book because it sounded more like a story than a dry, research publication. I thought the early chapters (setting the stage for the Depression) were more story-like as well as the last chapter, so those were my favorites. Did anyone else sense a difference in style in the chapters?

Ellen wrote: "I am not a cook, but I did read through most of the recipes. I found them interesting in terms of the simple ingredients and very few spices. Would our modern palates even be able to taste some of ..." That's a good point Ellen. The nutrition science at the time was not as sophisticated as today, and emphasized ways to feed people so they would not starve, with at least a minimal value of nutrition in the food.

I didn't notice so much a difference in style as much as pace and emphasis. The bulk of the book was devoted to the depression, which makes sense, based on the subtitle of the book. The disposition was slow and some elements were repeated.

But then towards the end, when the parts about frozen food and home economics were brought in, they were sort of rushed. I found those parts very interesting too and could almost see a separate book about that phase of American food history, rather than tacking it on quickly at the end of this one.

Susan I agree with you on the difference in style in the chapters. It seemed like 90% of the book dealt with the depression and then at the end they just threw in the additional extra years with a quick summations.

I enjoyed the book more than I thought I would. I found the politics of the Depression Era very interesting. It seems the saying that "those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it" is very appropriate because we can take some of the ideas they had about feeding the starving during the depression and apply it to the issues of today. One in particular that his me was when it was asked if it was the federal government's job to feed the country or is that some the states should be responsible for. The same question is now being applied to health care.

Ellen I thought the same thing about the last 2 chapters....it would have been better as a sequel! That part was so rushed it confused me as to why they would have added it.

Yeah, I don't think I'll be trying any of those recipes -- too many recipes with the word "loaf" in them (liver loaf!!). And pea roast sounded just awful. Though I give them credit for trying to get nutrition in while in very dire food supply circumstances. And I admit that I too add an extra can of beans when I am trying to stretch some recipes.

I agree about the last couple of chapters being rushed. I thought I had a good chunk left (wasn't paying attention to the many pages of notes) and then the end seemed so abrupt.

Marlies, I was thinking the same thing about parallels to then and now. Not even just with health care but about the constantly shifting science on nutrition (eggs bad, eggs good) but with the current proposals on reducing the funding for food stamps for the poor. I found it interesting that early on for the poorest of the poor confined to the municipal poor houses, they were considered a step below prison inmates, "the least deserving of basic nourishment". Like being poor is not already incredibly difficulty, that shame must be added.

I read an entirely unrelated article today and the subject of the article said "You don’t judge a civilization by its riches, but by how it treats its vulnerable". I think that is so true and feel we as a nation still have a long way to go.

I agree about the "eerie" parallels to today's world. I had not realized that some issues like workfare vs. welfare, dated back to these times, although I did realize that the role of the federal government greatly increased under FDR.

After a while I just skipped the actual recipes. They ate things I wouldn't touch. When they spoke about using the whole animal all I could think of is that I would have starved. I realize that many cultures do use the whole animal and my father had frequently told me about this when he lived on the farm but being the city girl I am, I just couldn't do it.

I thought the parts that mentioned FDR in the White House and how bad the cook was were interesting. The idea of not being too lavish when the rest of the country barely had enough to eat was a good one, though I think it was helped along by the bad cook :-)

I particularly enjoyed the description of meal time on the farm when the US was a much more rural society. Consuming 4,000 or so calories a day and working hard enough to burn it off. Wow! Then we learned about the impact of uniformly sliced bread, and the importance of milk. I still remember taking morning breaks in kindergarten with milk. We drank milk at every meal growing up.

I started the book late, so I am not through it all. We definitely are more sophisticated about food nutrition these days. Of course, they may have thought the same thing in the 1920s.
I haven't got the full sense of the book yet.
Ellen, I don't think it is totally true that they didn't eat appetizing food in the 1920s.😊 The food on the farms sound very hearty if many more calories than we would need for our daily lives.
I haven't gotten to the recipes yet but liver load doesn't sound like my type of thing either.
I thought the politics interspersed also interesting. I didn't realize there was a problem keeping folks on the farm. I guess that's where corporate farming came from. People gotta eat.