I think what you are seeing is related to where immigrant populations are coming from. Which is why Italian food is popular in the United States. There aren't a ton of Icelandic immigrants here, though.

I always think "closer to the equator, better the food" (more spice, fresh fruits, etc). Lots of exceptions, though!

spices

fruits and vegetables

the seafood of the global south is more flavorful, usually (salmon being a big exception). think cod or sole Vs. snapper or swordfish

Much of France is 'southern', by the way, with the herbs and produce you'd find in Italy.

One exception to OP's "rule," which I tend to agree with, is ... smoked fish! Where in Kerala or Ethiopia or Sicily they were spicing/salting the hell out of X piece of chicken to hide the fact that it was past its prime ... up in Norway, Canada, Siberia, etc. they were smoking the hell out of the excess fish they caught in-season to achieve the same purpose. Kippers, lox, etc. are very flavorful IMO. Lutefisk, you can keep though.

Well, I loved Maxim's Restaurant in DC. It's now closed.

It may also depend on where you live geographically. Growing up (not in DC), international cuisine was mostly Chinese or Mexican. And somewhere along the line, Thai has now become mainstream.

In DC however, most "Mexican" restaurants are actually run by Salvadorans. We also have an abundance of Ethiopian restaurants b/c DC boasts the largest Ethiopian population outside of Ethiopia/Eritrea.

So I bet in other areas of the country with more Eastern European roots, you'll find more restaurants representative of the surrounding population.

Because those foods are filled with carbs, salt, and insane amounts of grease. Staples for the American Fatty.

I also think some cuisines have become more mainstream because of adaptations and convenience food variations that have hooked Americans in.

Where do you think middle Eastern food falls? I think there is a similar level of complexity and spices as well as familiar ingredients (rice, flatbread). In this area, it's more mainstream but I think people in flyover country would have no clue about Persian cuisine.

Anonymous wrote:Access to fresh and varied produce is something you get in warmer climates and not something you'll find much of in Russian/Eastern European cooking. I spent six months in Prague (Jan-June) and we were craving fruits and vegetables and an end to the repetitive heavy, starchy food with sides of cabbage.

Exactly.

Variety. Abundance of produce plus abundance of spices.

Seriously how many meals of meat and potatoes can you eat?

France is an outlier because of how deeply and seriously they take sauces, and that's how flavor is introduced.

Japan is an outlier because of variety of seafood.

Access to fresh and varied produce is something you get in warmer climates and not something you'll find much of in Russian/Eastern European cooking. I spent six months in Prague (Jan-June) and we were craving fruits and vegetables and an end to the repetitive heavy, starchy food with sides of cabbage.

None of the places you mention have monolithic cooking styles. Spain, Italy, Greece, and India all have diverse cuisines based on region. Ditto Russia.

Because warmer temps meant rotten food that they tried to cover up with lots of spices -- deliciousness!

Everyone recommends Raskia and Oyamel. Lines at Chipotle are out the door. When a group of friends dine together, the "safe" choice is often Thai. I can't think of ever hearing any buzz about an Icelandic or Russian restaurant.

Care to weigh in? What is the reason, you think, for the near-universal popularity of the cuisines of the (for lack of a better term) global south? And even if we're discounting economy and geography, the warmer climates seem to produce "better" food-- Spain, Italy, Greece, as opposed to Germany, Poland. France and Japan seem to be outliers.

I know what I think... Indian food simply tastes better than pickled shark with potatoes. (No offense to my Icelandic friends.) But why is this the case?