American Beer, was Re: SC - US bars UK

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Oops! Sorry, there was more.

lilinah at earthlink.net wrote:
> 
> Ras rote:
> >My question is why in the world
> >would anyone want to go to a US type bar when traveling in a foreign country
> >let alone England.
> 
> Well, two reasons i can think of.

In addition to all those Anahita mentions, there's no reason to assume
the person looking for a US-type bar is in a foreign country, that is,
foreign to them. I guess this plugs into the possibility of exoticism.

<snip>

> FOURTH: uh, maybe, hard as this may be to swallow, some people
> actually *like* the taste of American beer (shudder)

Yeah, we all like to make fun of American beer, failing to note that A)
there's a lot out there that's as bad or worse in other countries, and
B) that American beer really only acquired the reputation it has had
since the Second World War, and that its decline is directly related to
historical events connected with that War. (Yes, our beer is, in effect,
our version of England's food, or rather, the way it is viewed, except
that the Death Blow for some forms of English food was World War Two,
while for American beer WWII comprised the majority of its decline.)

[Please, please note that nowhere, at any time in my life, have I ever
ascribed to the idea that English food is bad. That perception does
exist, and in some cases it is not unjustified, but as a cuisine, it is
glorious, when done properly.]

American beer consisted, until, say, 1941 or so, of hand-crafted produce
from small breweries using local ingredients to produce a range of
fairly high to extremely high quality versions of various top-fermented
ales and bottom-fermented lagers. The worst that could be said about
American beer prior to WWII was that it might include some cane sugar,
which a large number of English ales, even good ones, still do today.

It's been alleged that beer sales experienced a sharp and immediate drop
in the U.S. as of early 1942, largely the result of a great number of
American beer-drinkers going over to Europe in uniform. Since some of
the breweries had not yet fully recovered from economic blows suffered
during Prohibition (1919-1933), it was necessary to figure out what they
could do to increase sales to new markets, and the one they selected
first was the Working Woman, Rosie the Rivetter, call her what you will.
This market seemed to feel that beer was too strongly flavored, too
heavy, and too strong in alcohol content. (See, Zima is not
unprecedented; they used to call it Budweiser.) Beer strengths dropped,
specific gravties, texture, and flavor were toned down (which, BTW, made
beer production cheaper, too). Simultaneously a large portion of the
barley used in malt production was shunted off for government/war use,
leaving brewers to look for adjunct grains such as maize (eeeeh) and
rice (hwach-ptuey). Hop use dropped, and with some idiot's decision to
use hop extract came the end of being able to distinguish one varety of
hop from another in a beer.

Which pretty much leaves us where we are today, the victims of market
forces. This can, of course, be reversed if we want it to be.
Unfortunately not enough Americans seem to really want it that way, and
the various nods the large breweries have made to producing something in
the style of a micro-brewery have been an attempt to use a small
percentage of aberrants to grab a larger market share, rather than to
actually change the way they produce beer.

FWIW, I understand Britons have been complaining about a decline of
their beer for several years, also. (See La Pensee.) To my mind,
probably the biggest reason to want to see Bush in the White House is
that his crowd wouldn't stand for the kind of government interference in
something so basic and important as beer. Gore is probably a
wine-drinker... ;  ).
  
Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com