there’s an issue that i’d like to address, and, as a warning, it’s a very contentious issue.
but it’s so important that i feel utterly compelled to try and address it here.
that’s the issue of high vs. low tea.
i know, it’s a hot-button issue, up there with pro-choice vs. anti-choice, pro-war vs. anti-war.
better men than i have entered the fray and ended up beaten and bloodied by the high and low tea camps.
but here goes.
most people mistakenly think of ‘high tea’ as having something to do with aristocracy and fancy people in fancy hotels.
and that might be how ‘high tea’ has ended up, but the irony is that it originally started as an exclusively working class phenomenon.
‘high’ tea referred to the height of the table at which the ‘tea’ was being eaten.
basically, as factory workers and day labourers were leaving work or taking a break they would eat standing up, so as to save time.
thus ‘high’ tea.
they ate at high tables in pubs and bars.
‘low’ tea was, historically, much more aristocratic, as it involved sitting at a low table.
and the food at high and low tea differed greatly.
‘high’ tea, being more working class, tended toward hearty food that was designed to stave off a factory or farm workers hunger.
whereas ‘low’ tea involved dainty food for aristocratic ladies.
so the next time someone mentions ‘high tea’ thinking that they’re being all fancy and whatnot you can pedantically say ‘oh, but did you know that high-tea was traditionally a working class repast?’
at which point they can pretend to ignore you and later on tell their friends about the pedantic jerk who tried to tell them about high-tea and who actually used the word ‘repast’ conversationally.
well, that’s what usually happens to me, anyway.
i’m going to a disco party tonight.
awesome.
-moby
