Honduran thoughts

The best food is cooked in people’s homes, sold on the highways, or
on the beach.  I recommend grilled corn on the cob with chile and lime,
baleadas, which are fresh corn tortillas stuffed with beans and
sometimes cheese or avocado or pork, any tamales, and of course
seafood, most of all the conch ceviche (I did dare to eat it, in a
small village), and the Garifuna seafood dishes and soups cooked in
coconut milk.  Honduras is not known as a food country but that is because North American visitors take their meals in restaurants.

It is said that Honduras is too poor to afford its own oligarchy,
and the infrastructure here is poor, even by Central American
standards.  The rate of AIDS is supposed to be very high.

Natasha and I debated whether the upscale shopping mall in San Pedro
Sula — CityMall — seemed so U.S.-American because a) Honduras is
becoming so Americanized, or b) American shopping malls now attract so
many Latinos; that discussion is ongoing.  We also seem to export gang criminality to Honduras, which is no longer a fully safe
country.  Overall Honduras gets high marks on friendliness (especially
if you aren’t mugged; we weren’t), and on capturing the old feel of
Central America and the Caribbean, but there are few sights of the
traditional kind.  The country is recommended for the experienced traveler
looking for a change of pace, and luxury living at bargain prices, but
most people should try Costa Rica or Panama first.

Tela was a lovely beach community, if you are on the north Honduran
coast visit a Garifuna village and make sure you eat a home-cooked meal under the palm leaves.  Every
journey has an emotional and narrative center at its core and that was
it for us.  The way the kids play almost naked in the dirt you can see
why the rate of dengue fever is so high.

Skipping through the blogosphere (when I could connect) I saw horrified reactions to my anthropological suggestion, especially from Felix Salmon and Kevin Drum
plus many MR commentators.  Apparently I hit a nerve.  Contrary to their summaries, I am not saying that
anthropology is required for good commentary, rather than commentary
should disclose how much anthropology went into it.  Can that be so
wrong?

And here’s Michael Blowhard on KindleCraig Newmark linked to this good post on the economics of the writer’s strike, see also here.  Who knows what else I missed?

Comments

Comments for this post are closed