A NICE dispute has arisen between the French and Belgians over the question of who invented chips.
It's odd. I'd always assumed chips were a British, particularly Scottish, thing. But the Continentals put it about that we were late to the party. Maybe it's just as well. Chip-eating is excoriated by Scotland's self-hating bourgeoisie as a source of shame, whereas the Belgians and even the food-haughty French regard the delicacy with pride.
On yonder Continent, public debate has broken out over who has paternity of the fried potato. The French maintain Parisian street vendors invented the "frite" as a treat just after the revolution of 1789. Hmm, sounds radical. The Belgians paint a more intriguing picture of fishermen chopping potatoes into slices to resemble leetle fishes after the river Meuse froze in the 17th century. Might take that with a pinch of salt.
At a food festival in Brussels, culinary experts looked at the competing claims. But paternity seemed hard to prove. London's Independent newspaper quoted Pierre Leclerc, of Liège University, saying: "Belgians adore chips but serious scientific research on the subject has only just begun." That said, the Belgians came across as more passionate on the subject. You might imagine the Belgian coat of arms to consist of a bag of chips crossed by a bar of chocolate. You sense that the French, while proud, are more insouciant on the subject. Whatever the case, it's hard to imagine a world without chips.
Previously, a colleague on this column waxed lyrical about their all-round yumminess. But they're not worth fighting about. True, we're talking about a war of words, conducted in a civilised manner. But chips can arouse great passions, as anyone knows who has tried filching a few from somebody's plate.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article