CJC@psuvm.BITNET (08/23/85)
"In the U.S. ... tropical fruit is sometimes a luxury, but in many parts of
Latin America it is an indispensable part of the diet, even for the poorest
people. Peasant huts are apt to be surrounded by banana and papaya trees,
both of which start bearing when they are about a year old and produce
enormous amounts of fruit. What is not eaten at home is peddled in the
town at prices almost everyone can afford."
"The coconut palm, which grows in abundance in most tropical regions,
is the principal source of food in the Pacific islands."
The first quote is from the Time-Life book "Latin American Cooking",
the second from "Pacific and Southeast Asian Cooking", also Time-Life.
Both books continue with many pages discussing the importance of coconuts
and bananas in the regions where they grow, and include many recipes
showing a far greater variety of uses than we know here where those foods
are expensive luxuries. Considering the immense variety of climates, soils,
and terraines in the world, why do you imagine that the same crops should
be grown as staples in all parts of the world?
I'm not really sure that this is an analogy, but you might consider that
wild rice was a staple in North America before the Europeans came; do you
think that those people who harvest and sell wild rice now would be better
off to drain their swamp and plant wheat?