This is topic Crubeens in forum Our stupid lives at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=003292

Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 18, 2011, 00:52:
 
 -

After watching "Precious" last weekend I got it in my head that I wanted to eat some pigs feet because I had never tried them before. , But, I really don't like boiled meats, so I found this irish recipe for pigs feet instead of a soul food recipe.

Crubeens

I found the pigs feet , really frsh ones at my butcher, and he had them ( but normally didn't sell them)
because he was an actual butcher and was not just a proprieter of a shop that sells meat. ( Allot of the butchers around here just buy primal cuts and not the whole animal, and are therefore in my book not really butchers)


When I was done cooking them they looked exactly like in the picture. my mouth was watering. I love ham hocks and I was awaiting a similar taste.

They were horrible.


well, not so bad, but there was no meat what-so-ever in the foot. just cartilidge sinew and bone.

The skin was the only part I ate. It was crispy and salty as you would expect from fried pork rind.

I was expecting at least a tiny bit of meat on the bone. like in a lean ham hock.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on February 18, 2011, 09:24:
 
Did you simmer them for the 2-3 hours that the recipe directs? The cartilage is filled with collagen that breaks down over the long, slow cooking time to form gelatin. Until that happens, they would be quite gross. After it happens, though...

Well, to be honest, I still find it gross, but a lot of people seem to like it. I'll stick with crispy bacon if I want to add pork to my diet.
 
Posted by Aditu (Member # 2340) on February 18, 2011, 11:04:
 
My great grandfather found them dreadful. He said people ate them in Sligo because they were poor and he wasn't poor anymore. LOL
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 18, 2011, 13:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Did you simmer them for the 2-3 hours that the recipe directs? The cartilage is filled with collagen that breaks down over the long, slow cooking time to form gelatin. Until that happens, they would be quite gross. After it happens, though... .

Yes, I did boil them 3 hours in the stock, and the collegen did mostly break down. But I wanted some meat, not pork gelatin with a crispy shell.

In the end though, I tried something new and it only cost me 0.87€ to try.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 18, 2011, 18:58:
 
It'll taste better if you're listening to Bessie Smith while you eat it.

A pigs trotter adds a lot of richness to pea soup too. Lovely cold weather food.
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on February 19, 2011, 17:40:
 
One of life's sad realities is that, whatever culture you are from, it is fairly safe to
say that poor peoples food is rubbish. Of course there are exceptions such as the complex and delicate vegetarian recipes found in,for example, Sikh communities in India. In addition, I am excluding peasant cuisines that may be monotonous but are well above subsistence farming level, such as the Mediterranean Pasta/Olive oil/Tomato combo.

Tsampa in the high mountains of the East, blubber in the Arctic, Manioc in the Southern Americas, tripe 'n' trotters, hog-jowls, chicken-feets... these are all, historically, foods of necessity and we would do well to avoid romanticising them.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on February 19, 2011, 18:25:
 
Grummash wrote:
it is fairly safe to say that poor peoples food is rubbish

That's often true, but not always. Lobster, for example, used to be considered poor people's food because they were available in great abundance and were easily gathered. Now that there are so many fewer and people live further from the coasts, it's far more expensive and considered a delicacy.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 20, 2011, 01:17:
 
I would like to counter that many of these things are just not "rubbish" but simply not easily made to taste good , but they can be.

In the region around Milan, tripe is a poor persons traditional sustinance, and there are many restaurants that serve it because it was traditionally eaten there. The tripe soup made there is really delicious in the two restaurants I have tried it in.

GS_a lobster without melted butter is no dlicasy, in fact, I doubt I would be able to finish one.
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on February 20, 2011, 10:59:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Lobster, for example, used to be considered poor people's food

In the UK, oysters have also crossed over from being pauper's food (up to around 250 years ago) to being relatively expensive now - a dozen Natives by mail order will cost you around $40.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on February 20, 2011, 15:28:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Grummash:
One of life's sad realities is that, whatever culture you are from, it is fairly safe to say that poor peoples food is rubbish.

Funnily enough, I'd say the reverse. In general peasant food is food you can eat every day and never tire of, is satisfying and nutritionally sound. Once a society gets to the point where starvation and malnutrition is no longer a problem, I'd guess that far more dietary problems arise from rising living standards than (relative) poverty. Certainly some nutritionists used to say that the healthiest diet was that of Southern Italy, not a wealthy area.
 
Posted by Grummash (Member # 4289) on February 20, 2011, 17:35:
 
Calli - I agree with what you have said completely. However, I think we are discussing different things when we speak of "poor people's food".
The example you gave of a healthy and (arguably) enjoyable peasant cuisine, that of southern Italy,I specifically excluded from the "poor people's food" to which I was referring.

Perhaps I was stretching my point too far, but I was intending the phrase "poor people's food" to mean those foods which are the staple carbohydrate or protein of the region with little or no seasoning, spicing, variation of cooking methods... nothing, in other words, to elevate subsistence calories into anything approaching interesting.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on February 21, 2011, 01:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Lobster, for example, used to be considered poor people's food because they were available in great abundance and were easily gathered. .

Visiting an old prison site somewhere in N.E. USA (Plymouth? I disremember the exact location), they mentioned that there used to be rules about how often prisoners could be fed lobster, because it was considered inhumane to make them eat it every day.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on February 21, 2011, 03:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Famous Druid:
quote:
Originally posted by GrumpySteen:
Lobster, for example, used to be considered poor people's food because they were available in great abundance and were easily gathered. .

Visiting an old prison site somewhere in N.E. USA (Plymouth? I disremember the exact location), they mentioned that there used to be rules about how often prisoners could be fed lobster, because it was considered inhumane to make them eat it every day.
As was also the case in the work contracts of the first indentured serevnts (slaves) in america that it usually stipulatd that they could be only fed lobster so many times a week.

And I still content that lobster as duisgusting without butter, which really would have been a luxury back at this time.
 
Posted by GrumpySteen (Member # 170) on February 21, 2011, 10:55:
 
Ashitaka wrote:
And I still contend that lobster as disgusting without butter

I think it's pretty awful with butter too, to be honest. Cockroach of the sea is an apt description.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0