On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 11:36:04 -0600, Olivers >
wrote:

>We (hosts) serve to ourselves and to guests sweetened
>foods/sauces/condiments as part of ancient cultural memory, that we were of
>an affluence which allowed us to purchase sweeteners (in a time when sugars
>were vastly more expensive/harder to get than today).

My theory is that calorie-dense foods (fats and sugars) were the most
desirable when simple survival was the goal. Sharing these prizes
would be nurturing and hospitable.

>Certainly, in the US South, "sweetening" has cultural/societal
>implications. Pooor man's cornbread remains sugarless unto this day,

Don't think so. Sorghum and cane are common in old-time Southern
cooking.

>while
>most of the current mixes - the cornbreads of even modest affluence - are
>so heavily sugared as to be unpalatable. "Sweet" tea, massively pre-
>sugared, is a typical restaurant and home manifestation of "moving up"
>among the lower and lower middle class venues in which it is most often
>available. Unsugared hams are hard to find, and most of the pink loaves
>currently purveyed are more sweet than they are "hammy".

Regional, not class, preferences. Many Southerners put sugar in a lot
of things many Californians don't. Southern iced tea is normally very
sweet; it's unsweetened in other regions. Smithfield, VA, the center
of much classic ham production, produces mostly salt-cured products,
'though 'honey-cured' items are available.

The OP inquired about a "North American" fondness for sugar, which I
think is a mistaken impression. *I* wonder about the inclusion of
sugar in many dishes in Southern US cooking, But it's mostly, AFAIK, a
regional preference.