I have run out of peanut butter, but not jelly. [THREAD]

In America, the peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich dates to the late 19th Century. The ascendant version of this snack/meal has been circumscribed by bread.

1/

The 1928 invention of sliced bread — a.k.a. "the greatest forward step in the baking industry since bread was wrapped" — only solidified this ideal. Since then, those who choose to make "PB & J" sandwiches *without* bread have been marginalized and even ridiculed.

2/

But a close examination of the "bread norm" reveals that it is merely an assumption. And a faulty one at that.

3/

Consider "PB & J." I'm not naïve; any abbreviation is bound to omit details at the margins. However, the implication about what is *essential* about this meal/snack is plain as day.

After all, it's not PB & J & B.

4/

Close followers of this feed will already know that I am a vocal opponent of the "bread norm" — not as a PRACTICE, but as an ASSUMPTION.

Peanut butter and jelly from a jar, with a spoon, is no less PB & J than anything ever stowed into an American lunchbox.

5/

Which brings us to the present dilemma: What if there is J, but no PB?

6/

Which in turn brings us IMMEDIATELY back to our old friend, History.

Jam sandwiches, a British invention, may in fact PREDATE the classic PB & J. It all began in the 1880s...

7/

...When, according to The Guardian, industrialization and sugar-tax easing collaborated to produce conditions in which jam, formerly brewed "once or twice a year by rubicund farmer's wives from fresh ripe local fruit," was made widely available.

8/

Now what, you might be asking yourselves, does THAT have to do with PB & J... and your (my) supplies of same in the year 2020?

I'm very glad you asked.

Thank you, for asking.

9/

Close readers of this thread will recall that I am currently in circumstances where I have jelly, but no peanut butter.

I'd like to thank those of you who have sent condolences.

To be sure, the state of my PB supply is not ideal.

(To put it lightly!)

10/