Goddams-a different British stereotype

It is the opposite. The French think the English eat overcooked meat. An English "well done" is what the French would consider "burnt".

It wasn't really the case until very recently. Cuisine changes like all things do. You could also look at South America, where undercooked meat is often called "English".

Meat is SUPPOSED to be slightly cooked, to keep some of the flavours. Why do you think we have steak tartare ?

I have no idea why people eat steak tartare (since Tatars cook their meat very thoroughly as a rule), and why anyone would enjoy a thick slab of something cold, wet and gelatinous when it could be properly roasted or stewed instead.

But to each their own.
 
Last edited:
Meat is SUPPOSED to be slightly cooked, to keep some of the flavours. Why do you think we have steak tartare ?

It depends on how the meat is cooked. A "well done" meat can have different flavours if cooked on a wood fire or on charcoal. I like barbequing meat on charcoal because of the sweet flavours I get.

If meat is cooked in an oven or on an electric or gas stove, I agree with you and definitely prefer it rare or semi-rare to maintain the delicate flavours.


And incidently, "Rosbif" isn't use as an ethnic slur in quebec, just france.

That is true.
 
Well, the stodgy stereotype that Americans have of the British comes in large part from their mutual history - the UK is "grumpy 'ol dad, never lets us have any fun". Australia seems kind of similar, perhaps even a bit darker ("Dad threw us out of the house!"), but I don't know that any other nation perceives the British that way.

I find the continental tracts on the Protestant Beast during the 17th century interesting in this regard. The ones around 1600 generally depict the sinister, moustache-twirling Dutch mastermind and his pack of unlettered English thugs; by 1700, though, it was the English hothead, ready to fight anyone, anytime, on the flimsiest of pretexts, and his cowardly (but far more perceptive) Dutch sidekick.
 
I find the continental tracts on the Protestant Beast during the 17th century interesting in this regard. The ones around 1600 generally depict the sinister, moustache-twirling Dutch mastermind and his pack of unlettered English thugs; by 1700, though, it was the English hothead, ready to fight anyone, anytime, on the flimsiest of pretexts, and his cowardly (but far more perceptive) Dutch sidekick.

The funny thing I've noticed in canadian medias and peoples views in general seem to be that francophones find anglophones too cold and anglophones find the francophones too emotional.

As anything, perception is everything and the anglos probably find their own level of emotional display perfectly normal.
 
Top