The other side to the rice pudding debates didn’t abandon the notion that kids could and should acquire new, and better, tastes, but insisted that there was no point in torturing them.
Hence, longstanding parental battles to get the kids to “eat your veggies first”, or “eat a little broccoli and you can have a sweet later”.
Perhaps they would come to like foods that were good for them, but, really, who cared whether they enjoyed them or not? As a rule, children didn’t like foods that were genuinely nourishing. One side of the rice pudding controversies maintained that children’s tastes were corrupt: youngsters liked bad things – bread and jam, sweets, tea and sugar – and they needed vigorous expert intervention to get them to eat properly. When, years later, Mary Jane was “crying with all her might and main”, and AA Milne asked what was the matter with her, the answer was, of course, “it’s lovely rice pudding for dinner again!”. The problem was that many children – of all classes – detested rice pudding.
Rice pudding, and its relatives made from sago, tapioca and semolina, were at the heart of the matter, because experts had thought for some time that these milky concoctions were cost-effective ways of getting good stuff into the kids.
#First bite by bee wilson how to
The controversies were largely about working-class kids – how to properly nourish them, how to make them better representatives of an “imperial race”, and how to overcome the “stupid feeding” that produced so many sallow, stunted and disease-ridden children, destined to be unfit for military service or productive work. T he great British rice pudding debates of 1912-13 pitted against each other two notions of how children did, and should, develop their eating habits.
0 kommentar(er)
