Let's Write About America's French Chef Julia Child

Born August 15, 1912, Julia Child would have been 110 this year, in 2022. An echo tribute published in the blog "The Broken Palate", by Laine Doss. 

Child's co-written book, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, along with her television show, The French Chef, made Child a celebrity chef long before there was such a thing.

Child was an unlikely figure to become a beloved television personality even in 1963, when it debuted.

Interesting, she was considered too tall to join the United States Navy's WAVES, or the Womens' Army Corps, and with an unusual voice, Child nevertheless became a beloved television figure because of her joie de vivre and her ability to capture the attention of people.

Julia Child (1912-2004 d. in Montecito, CA)
" toujours bon appétit!"

In an era that embraced the modernity of frozen TV dinners and instant Jell-O, Child reminded people that the act of cooking for someone is also an act of love. She also taught American housewives — and later everyone else, that cooking need not be a chore — it can be a creative outlet and a source of great pride.

Nearly two decades after her death in 2004, at the age of 91, Child is still much loved and revered. The movie Julie and Julia, in which Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci brought Child and her beloved husband, Paul, to life, brought a renewed interest in the French Chef.

In 2021, a documentary on her life, entitled Julia (watch the trailer here), was released, and HBO released an excellent series, also entitled Julia, this past year which focuses on Child's rise to television fame.

Julia Child quote, "A party without a cake is really just a meeting".

Child did more than merely entertain. She also influenced a cadre of talented women to enter the culinary world — once a profession only overseen by men. We interviewed a handful of women chefs who talk about her legacy.

Alex Guarnaschelli, herself a chef, restaurateur, and television personality — her show Alex vs. America is now airing on Food Network — says that she grew up with Julia Child on TV.

 “My mom watched Julia Child on PBS. She would take notes, shop, and recreate the dishes.,” she says. “Those classic dishes and flavors woke me up to food. The aroma of melting Gruyere, the floral notes in a lemon curd, or the pure beefy flavor from a simple stew. They became the very flavors I have pursued and tried to recreate my whole career.”

Nina Compton, who won the 2018, James Beard award for Best Chef, South and was named Best New Chef by Food & Wine in 2017, says Julia Child’s legacy is long lasting. 

The Top Chef season 11 “fan favorite” and owner of Compere Lapin and Bywater American Bistro, both in New Orleans, says of Child, “She was able to tap into peoples’ curiosities about French cuisine and present it in a way that was sophisticated but not scary. She made it approachable for people who might have thought it was beyond their abilities — cooking wise — and also assured them it was OK to try and fail and try again, She helped teach a generation that being a good cook was not just about innate talent — it was also about practice. And to have fun while doing it.”

Sophina Uong, chef/owner of New Orleans’ Mister Mao calls Child “fearless.” The chef says, “She was a force of nature, empowering women to pursue a culinary career defying the norm. She encouraged institutions like the Culinary Institute of America to become more inclusive,” she says. “She basically kicked open the door for women chefs so we would be stronger and surpass our male peers unapologetically. She also taught me to love butter and cream, which was a luxury to have in our Asian household. They were mysterious ingredients to me.”

James Beard award-winning chef, Michelle Bernstein, who is a partner in Miami’s Cafe la Trova, didn’t grow up watching Child on TV, but found her just as she, herself, was embarking on her own culinary career. “Julia is the reason I had the courage to travel to France to pursue my dreams and work under chef Jean-Louis Palladin. It was a tough kitchen to be in as a young woman and as an American. They didn’t believe I had the same skills and strength as the men on the line,” she says.

“I often thought of Julia at this time and she gave me the grit to push through and show them what I was capable of doing. I met her a little later in life at a chance encounter at the grocery store. I approached her and she gave me the warmest, most genuine embrace. It’s something I will never forget. I ran home to grab my cookbook of hers and had her sign it. She was such an inspiration to so many women and home cooks and for me as a professional cook to pursue my dreams despite the industry being predominantly male-driven.”

Maine Writer tribute: Julia Child was well known in the Ogunquit coastal town of Ogunquit where she often visited during the summer. My favorite Julia Child recopies - and I have actually prepared these recipes are (a) Julia Child's French Onion Soup (b) Julia Child's Boeuf Bourguignon and (c) Julia Child's Hollandaise Sauce. 

© 2022 Broken Palate
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

Let's write about homo sapiens!

HUMAN EVOLUTION

Christopher Brian Stringer FRS is a British physical anthropologist noted for his work on human evolution

Are Neanderthals the same species as us? Essay published in the Natural History Museum on line magazine, by Chris Stringer.

Museum human evolution expert Professor Chris Stringer, who has been studying Neanderthals and early modern humans for about 50 years, tackles the big question of whether we belong to the same species.

Human evolution

Everyone on the planet today, whatever they look like and wherever they live, is classified by biologists in the species Homo sapiens. 

But some commentators are now suggesting that the extinct Neanderthals with their heavy brows and big noses should be classified in our species as well.

So what defines our species, and who qualifies to join the club?

An expanding family tree: When I drew up a family tree covering the last one million years of human evolution in 2003, it contained only four species: Homo sapiens (us, modern humans), H. neanderthalensis (the Neanderthals), H. heidelbergensis (a supposedly ancestral species), and H. erectus (an even more ancient and primitive species). I have just published a new diagram covering the same period of time and it shows more than double the number of species, including at least four that were around in the last 100,000 years.

Scientists currently recognize as many as nine human species from the past one million years, including the recently discovered Homo luzonensis, which was announced in April 2019.

Named by Linnaeus: Our species name (which means 'wise humans' - though we might question the wisdom of that name today) was given to us by that great Swedish classifier Carl Linnaeus in 1758. In those pre-evolutionary times, species were usually considered to be fixed identities, created by God.

Grouping living things in species allows biologists to study aspects of life ranging from our own evolutionary history to the conservation of rain forests in the Amazon.

Today we still recognize each species by its own special features.
How do Homo sapiens and Neanderthals differ?

The physical traits of Homo sapiens include a high and rounded ('globular') braincase, and a relatively narrow pelvis.

Measurement of our braincase and pelvic shape can reliably separate a modern human from a Neanderthal - their fossils exhibit a longer, lower skull and a wider pelvis.

Even the three tiny bones of our middle ear, vital in hearing, can be readily distinguished from those of Neanderthals with careful measurement. In fact the shape differences in the ear bones are more marked, on average, than those that distinguish our closest living relatives - chimpanzees and gorillas - from each other.

Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) Swedish zoologist

Named by Carl Linnaeus: Our species name (which means 'wise humans' - though we might question the wisdom of that name today) was given to us by that great Swedish classifier Carl Linnaeus in 1758. In those pre-evolutionary times, species were usually considered to be fixed identities, created by God.

Grouping living things in species allows biologists to study aspects of life ranging from our own evolutionary history to the conservation of rain forests in the Amazon.

Today we still recognise each species by its own special features.
How do Homo sapiens and Neanderthals differ?

The physical traits of Homo sapiens include a high and rounded ('globular') braincase, and a relatively narrow pelvis.

Measurement of our braincase and pelvic shape can reliably separate a modern human from a Neanderthal - their fossils exhibit a longer, lower skull and a wider pelvis.

Even the three tiny bones of our middle ear, vital in hearing, can be readily distinguished from those of Neanderthals with careful measurement. In fact the shape differences in the ear bones are more marked, on average, than those that distinguish our closest living relatives - chimpanzees and gorillas - from each other.

Stringer writes, "I still believe they are distinct species".

In the face of this seemingly decisive evidence, why do I cling to my belief that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens are distinct species?

Well, in my view the problem is not with ancient couplings between our ancestors and Neanderthals, but with the limitations of the biological species concept.

We now know from the same kind of genomic research that many other species of mammal interbreed with each other - for example different kinds of baboons (genus Papio), wolves and wild dogs (Canis), bears (Ursus) and large cats (Panthera). In addition, one recent estimate suggests that at least 16% of all bird species interbreed with each other in the wild.

Thus the problem is not with Neanderthals and modern humans and all the other species that interbreed with each other, but with the biological species concept itself. It is only one of dozens of suggested species concepts, and one that is less useful in the genomic age, with its profuse demonstrations of inter-species mixing. 

In fact, the reality is that in most cases in mammals and birds, species diverge from each other gradually. It may take millions of years for full reproductive isolation to develop, something that clearly had not yet occurred for H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.

In my view, if Neanderthals and Homo sapiens remained separate long enough to evolve such distinctive skull shapes, pelvises, and ear bones, they can be regarded as different species, interbreeding or not.

Humans are great classifiers, and we do like to keep things orderly. But we should not be surprised when the natural world (past and present) does not match up to our neat and simple schemes.
Behaviour is irrelevant here

But what about the archaeological evidence that is also commonly cited in favour of uniting the Neanderthals with us as Homo sapiens - that they had 'cultural' behaviours such as burying their dead and painting designs on the walls of caves?

Well, interesting as that is, it should be excluded from the biological classification of species, since behaviors are potentially more plastic, evolve more quickly, and spread more easily within and between species than traits based on anatomy and DNA.