In Italy we say: "A lot of spices are to cover the taste of bad ingredients".
It means that if you use a lot of spices ( we _usually_ use only black pepper and salt ), you are going to cover the taste of the ingredients you are using, we believe that you need to use good ingredients to have flavourful recipes, if an ingredient tastes bad you shouldn't use it. Also we always search for the balance, there shouldn't be too much meat or too much vegetables, just the right balance where each flavour brings the best of the each other.
I'm Indian, and some of the most amusing conversations I've had about food have been with Italians.
An Italian professor was insistent that I stand up and defend the need for Indian food to use a million spices. He was proud of the fact that delicious Italian food could be whipped up using just three ingredients. I was in full agreement with him, that Italian food was wonderful, and that it was commendable how far they could take simple ingredients. But he was almost demanding (diplomatically of course) that I take the other side and argue that one needed a million spices to make good food.
An Italian friend was aghast that I would suggest putting Onion and Garlic in the same meal. It was strictly either/or for him.
Re>> aghast that I would suggest putting Onion and Garlic in the same meal. It was strictly either/or for him.
American here. This is quite surprising to me - that wouldn't have occurred to me. Pan searing garlic and onion (before adding additional ingredients) is the "omg, what are you cooking?!, it smells _great_!!" starter kit in my home - when it's literally just those two things.
If you want to be snobbishly criticised about arbitrary food choices by strangers Italy is the place.
I've worked for a client in Italy, a short guy trying to aggressively assert superiority because of how he drinks coffee is a uniquely Italian experience. Oh and the hands and feet mime English is equally entertaining.
Not knowing where you are from, I'd take a guess at American as there is a sharp divide in garlic use between Italian and Italian-American cusine.
Italian food typically has a lot less garlic in it and if you had it in any of the classic dishes like ragù alla bolognese or risotto alla milanese it would be surprising. Dishes like spaghetti alla puttanesca or aglio e olio are classic examples where it is used.
Marinara sauce of course has garlic as a key ingredient but this is normally thought of as a Italian-American dish and not something you'd typically find in Italy. Likewise if you had a ragu or risotto in the US you'd probably be surprised if there wasn't garlic in it. And let us not forget that other American invention of garlic bread.
One thing I learned recently was that the typical types of garlic available in the US and Italy are different - softneck and hardneck respectively. Hardneck is a _lot_ more flavourful than softneck which I believe goes a long way to explaining why it's used so much more frequently in the US (and in seemingly incredible quantities).
There's a very good YouTube channel [0] about Italian cooking (In Italian, usually with English subtitles available) where on one episode of chef's reacting to other videos of "Italian cooking" they had a laugh about this stereotype of Italians eating lots of garlic.
In my region (Piemonte) we certainly do. One of the most distinctive dishes is bagna cauda, which is a dip sauce made mainly of anchovies and tons of garlic. It's usually recommended that you eat it before a day where you don't have to go out and interact with other people because you'll smell really badly of garlic :)
I work at a foreign language instruction company. Two of the funniest moments happened at the same lunch. The Italians declaring, "Americans use too much garlic." And the Turkish declaring, "Americans have too many kinds of cheese. Cheese is just cheese."
I've been known to put garlic, onions, and shallots into a dish.
Interestingly, Turks have broadly one type of cheese (not really true, but compared to France let's go with it) per use. So cheese really isn't just cheese.
You have your cheese for sandwiches and melting, you have your cheese for stuffing pastries, you have your cheese for breakfast, you have a couple of ones with special shapes like the braided ones. And please, try not to mix these up. The white cheese for breakfast is not the one for the pastry, even though it looks similar. And why do Europeans crumble any sort on their dishes and call it Turkish? The nerve!
In some sense, Turks are some of the least "Cheese is cheese" people I met.
Moving to France and discovering that every grocery store always has an entire aisle full of Cheeses was a mind-bending discovery for me. The aisle stinks, mind you, but nothing can beat Raclette after a winter's day out. The other amazing realisation was just how seriously bread is taken in these parts, with that famous No Such Thing observation that bakers in Paris may not take a vacation without putting a sign to the nearest boulangerie.
Indian food was the first cuisine I thought of when reading GP's comment. Indian food is, at least in my opinion, just as incredible and delicious as Italian food while utilising many spices and ingredients. You also get unique kinds of flavours that are impossible to achieve using European approaches to cooking, and to miss out on these because of culinary snobbery seems extremely sad.
This is food-as-fandom, isn't it? It's not enough to enjoy your own tastes, you have to get out there and tell people that your taste is superior to theirs. You can see it playing out even in this thread.
I have had similar conversations with Italians about food or coffee. They're very passionate about both and - at least when it comes to coffee - will also get into heated discussions over it with other Italians, not just foreigners. I think it's just the culture.
I have a different story. I come from a Northern country where there was no "good" coffee for decades, just regular filter coffee, usually too strong. We accept our inferiority in this regard.
When I was in Italy or France, I took a liking to their coffee. Sure, seems complicated for home use, but nice in a cafe or bar.
To me, living in Paris, this was (at the time) good coffee.
So then I met an American, and when I related the above, I was told that the coffee wasn't actually that good at all, and I should try some real artisanal coffee like they do in New York. Luckily, this was getting popular in Europe as well.
So, I tagged along to a new and hip coffee place and found, to my surprise, that the mysterious espresso machines had been replaced by good old filters, but with a very arcane and complex production process.
The other difference was that the coffee was weak and tasted more like tea than coffee. I did not like it at all, as I wanted a coffee and not some weak watery tea. I like all sorts of coffees - from espresso to filter to Nescafe - for their own unique taste, except this one.
Anyway, my point is that I found American coffee snobs to be more snobby than French or Italian ones.
I'm Indian and for me saag is "leafy greens" too. Spinach to be more particular.
The thing is that in India some meanings change with geography and location. For example, for me bhujia meant this [1] for the longest time. However, when I moved to a different part of the country, bhujia also meant potato fritters. Then, there is bhaji which means fried veggies. But some people also call potato fritters as bhaji.
In the U.K. (at least while I was growing up) we had ‘Bombay mix’[1] which included your version of bhujia.
Bhaji and Pakora seem to be interchangeable in British-Indian cuisine. If the bulk is onion it’s called a bhaji, otherwise pakora.
Halwa is another one that can be wildly different, it seems. Though most parts of the world have their own version I guess, all irresistible but very different.
I wonder if they meant saag paneer. The first google result for that recipe lists 21(!) ingredients and a 1 hr 20 minute prep time, but a difficulty of "Easy".
That's funny, when I googled it the first result was showing a 5 minute prep time and 15 minute cooking time. I've noticed that with Indian food there's many ways to skin the cat. If you start with fresh spinach you'd have a different prep time than with frozen spinach.
"A lot of spices are to cover the taste of bad ingredients" - Thats a very pretentious statement , i hear this from lot of stake guys. The use of spice is totally cultural, few do have medicinal value - the best example would be (Curcuma,Cinnamon etc) ..Some spices that are native to Asia/Africa make big difference in food flavors.You appreciate it when you grow up with it. I also understand why people appreciate meat without spices , it also involves which region the meat is from . From what i have experienced , the meat ( lamb) in Asia and Europe is totally different in texture. Its like fish , there is big difference between a lake fish, river fish and sea fish .
Interesting take. Steak is one of the things that I do prefer without extra sauces or spices. Tuna steak I add a bit of salt pepper and chilli powder. Chicken by itself is fairly bland, I find it like a blank canvas for adding other flavours to.
I'm from center ( Sardinia ), we also do Aglio, olio e peperoncino. We do use spicy peppers, but I must say they are not so common, majority of recipes don't use them but some people add them to taste.
I do also like to add some spiciness, but the problem is that if you add just a little bit too much you taste only the spiciness and nothing else
It works in reverse too. For people who habitually eat spicy food, when eating something non-spicy you can end up only tasting the "blandness" and not appreciating the flavours. Exactly like how cold food just doesn't taste as good as warm food (if it's meant to be warm), even though it's the exact same food.
> Exactly like how cold food just doesn't taste as good as warm food (if it's meant to be warm), even though it's the exact same food.
sometimes the temperature really does change the food though. for example, a cheese sauce is a delicate emulsion of fat and proteins that is only stable in a certain temperature range. outside that range, the fat separates and you no longer have a sauce. of course if you reheat it, you can get back to the same consistency. on the other hand, coffee chemically changes as it cools. even if you could ignore the temperature, the cold cup wouldn't be the same as the warm cup. and if you reheat it, it changes even more.
> I'm from center ( Sardinia ), we also do Aglio, olio e peperoncino. We do use spicy peppers, but I must say they are not so common, majority of recipes don't use them but some people add them to taste.
The center [0] would be Emilia Romanga, no? I was led to believe that Sardinia, like Corisca, is its own thing culturally speaking, isn't? I mena its been inhabited and conquered by every major European/Arab power at some point and its food definitely reflects that.
Then again I'm also a walking contradiction: I lived and worked in Modena and Maranello and I'd cook southern recipes in an agrotourism kitchen with Northern and Central ingredients. I loved the look when as a Californian I nailed the right balance of spiciness and savoriness to satisfy a northerner (say Milan) for another order on something like pasta con le sarde.
The owner, from Sicily, was always taken back by how well accepting his clientele (mainly Ferrari factory workers or eco-tourists from the North visiting the countryside) were to Southern dishes, especially those that 'a Californian made' who has to date never stepped foot in the 'proper' South.
The furthest south I've ever gone was Bologna! I just really like southern cuisine and cooked and read a bunch of old hand me down cookbooks the owner brought with him and blogs and misc videos online while I did my apprenticeship in ER. I just find it more interesting as Northern food always felt too bloaty given it's emphasis on cheeses, butters and creams, which after having spent most of my time in Switzerland felt redundant.
I think many would disagree - I have never found that capsaicin heat detracts from the other flavors. Indeed, if you look at reviews for even extremely hot sauces, you will often see complaints about the ones that rely only on heat, and do not have good flavor.
I spent one day in Cagliari and had a lovely time. One afternoon is an injustice to the island, but the whole trip was spurred by Ryan air's 10 euros flight tickets from Rome :D
Certainly seemed fairly different to me when I visited - I was more used to northern Italian food.
NB I should have been clearer - I don't mean that the food seemed spicey in absolute terms, just that compared to other Italian food I had tried there was a noticeable use of some spices.
Edit: Also possible I was selecting the spicier items from menus!
You are so wrong I do not even know where to start. But because I was the most offended about the spanish comments I will start there.
> The former only recently being in vogue because of the work Ferran Adria.
That is not true, Spain has many regions with formidable chefs. But for example the Basque country is one of the areas of the world with most Michelin Stars per square mile, comparable to Tokyo, New York etc. Basque cuisine is almost exclusively based on simple ingredients done well.
The fact you are so supremely uneducated about something so well known means the rest of the comment can be taken with a pinch of salt, no pun intended.
Japanese food has minimalist traditions but it also has it hotpot of "add it all together" common recipes which are all fantastic.
> mistaking culinary acceptance as desirable inclusiveness.
I am european, your comment is just misinformed and wrong. It is not even down to opinion, you are factually wrong and incredibly self confident based on meeting one Indian guy at work.
> Is it snobbery
Yes, and the worst kind. I say this as a snob myself. I save up to eat at great restaurants and go far off the trail for certain food experiences. But I have eaten in the worst joints in Sichuan with incredibly spicy food, and delicious traditional Pakistani curries and neither has ruined my palette to eat Sous vide sirloin with crystal salt
> That is not true, Spain has many regions with formidable chefs. But for example the Basque country is one of the areas of the world with most Michelin Stars per square mile, comparable to Tokyo, New York etc. Basque cuisine is almost exclusively based on simple ingredients done well.
I never said nothing else existed before him, I just said Spanish cuisine became in vogue because of Ferran. That's undeiable, he put so many on the map, who had actually been doing things before Feran even took over El Bulgi, and kitchens in Basque Country were one of many examples.
My family is from Valencia and I did my summers there in my youth, I don't need to be 'schooled' on it's eclectic and highly regarded diverse cuisine. I just restated my views of how non-culinary people viewed Spanish and Italian cuisine below French.
I'm just saying go find someone not in the Industry or a devout foodie (before the internet no less) who knows about the intricacies of Asturian/Gallecian cuisine vs Catalan and then compare that to how lined up to work for free at El Bulgi.
My friend and cook moved from Brazil, then went to France and then to Andalucia and worked for nothing to be at El Bulgi Hotel... this is the power of marketing, none of which was found in Pais Basco for most where they had been serving some of the the best seafood for millenia. Nor was any of its offerings known outside of foodie circles; did all of that exist before Ferran? Of course, but I'm saying it wasn't well known until Ferran's avant garde cusinese made the masses pay attention to Spanish cuisine.
> The fact you are so supremely uneducated about something so well known means the rest of the comment can be taken with a pinch of salt, no pun intended.
Again, you can draw whatever conclusion you want from my comment, but I still don't see anything but conjecture on your part. Moreover, I'd ask what have you done in this Industry to speak with such an arrogant tone? I told you what I did, and why I have the opinion (key word here is opinion) that I do.
> Japanese food has minimalist traditions but it also has it hotpot of "add it all together" common recipes which are all fantastic.
Nabemono. And yes, that is true but have you ever made one?
It's a staple in my home: and its made from simple dashi with often small amounts of protein cooked in shabu-shabu manner with seasonal vegetables and often tofu and maybe noodles in some cases, how does that that detract from what I said about being in line with what I said?
Japanese cuisine is about subtlety and refined contrast between its flavours and maintaining textures. It's a fine balance of both. Bombarding you with immeasurable flavour is a very Kansai (specifically Osaka) thing but that's limited to street food, which is actually really good, too. And matches it's work hard, and party harder drinking culture.
But something like nabemono has nothing to do with that.
Again, I'm failing to see what YOU are actual rebuttaling against here other than your own conjecture.
> I save up to eat at great restaurants and go far off the trail for certain food experiences...
Awesome, and I can tell you fancy yourself as something of a foodie, but that doesn't mean you know anything of how food is or should be prepared and served best--do you study harvest dates for certain vegetable and fruit cultivars or trialed slaughter periods/season of livestock? I have, that was part of my farming apprenticeship. I used that experience in my culinary career, often to deaf ears which is why I focused on farm to tables.
There is something off-putting about what amounts to a client telling a cook about how something should be made, and then calling them supremely uneducated, don't you think?
> Moreover, I'd ask what have you done in this Industry to speak with such an arrogant tone
Oh the self-awareness. You really believe whatever achievements you have give you the right to be arrogant, don’t you? They don’t. Clearly, as you have proven, experienced people can have terribly skewed opinions and most people realize that.
> I just said Spanish cuisine became in vogue because of Ferran.
Maybe 20 years ago. "In vogue" in cooking changes every 3 years. See the rise of Peruvian cooking, Korean cuisine, or the incremental choice of vegan options on high end restaurants in the past 10 years.
> (before the internet no less)
Yeah in 1990-2005 the food culture of much parts of the world was under developed. That does not mean that it was the tradition of the country. You seem to conflate public knowledge with what a country is doing, and reputation and reality do not always match.
By the way the restaurant is called (was called) El Bulli, no idea why you called it Bulgi.
> Bombarding you with immeasurable flavour is a very Kansai (specifically Osaka)
I thought you said that it was not part of Japanese cuisine? You also disparaged sauces as elements used to hide flavour, when Japan is huge on sauces.
It is almost as if your "mantras" do not hold, even for the traditions you seem to cherish.
> There is something off-putting about what amounts to a client telling a cook about how something should be made, and then calling them supremely uneducated, don't you think?
Yes there is, hence why I admitted my snobbishness. But Me being a dickhead does not stop any of my points for being true.
You claimed the following things.
- Sauces are hindrance to dish that respects the quality of the products.
- You prefer Italian and Japanese traditions of cooking due to their minimalist approach and respect of seasonal offerings.
- You consider spiced foods detrimental to sophisticated palettes and the abuse of enhancers of flavours as an insult to delicate, respectful food items.
My reply was, as someone who also prefers simple, great ingredient dishes, that none of what you said holds up.
+ Sauces can be as much a staple of the dish as just something to hide the flavour.
Eg.
You can hide shit cow cuts with a strong pepper sauce which French cuisine (and British) excels at. But you can also have a delicate creamy peppercorn sauce that highlights all the earthy undertones of a good grass fed Ox steak.
You can use curry and curcumin to hide terrible chicken breasts or hard lamb. But it can also be a rich sauce that bring an orchestra of flavour (not unlike good teriyaki can be).
+ Japanese/Italian traditions antiquated over sauce based French/ sauced and spiced Indian.
Despite the fact that Italian has traditions that use heavy handed spices, in a way Mexicans would heavily approve of. There is also the very glaring omission of how much of traditional Italian food is straight up hiding bad ingredients. Lasagna uses cheese and bechamel to hide many times little or bad quality mince meat, it was a way to feed a large family with very little quality meat. And so are many traditional Italian dishes. Of course a refined carbonara is incredible, but back in the day, some hard cheese a random egg you had lying around and a little pepper was not delicate or considered one of the best emulsified sauces. It was a "oh god how do I feed my family with 3 random things I have lying around". The home aspect of Italian cuisine is incredibly relevant to the conversation because the use of seasonal vegetables comes using whatever was at hand, is an incredibly humble origin that makes it so much more worthy of the international appraise it has now.
Now in terms of Japanese Cuisine. Yeah they do have tons of minimalist, respectful products. But outside of the fact you admitted they have tons of flavorful dishes (you put them aside as street food but at least admitted their existence). I do not think you really have looked closely at some of the product origin. Japan has eel all year round by buying it at absurd prices from European markets, their fishing industry is dodgy (to not call it criminal), none of this is in any way in line with your idea of "local sourced, respectful product". There is nothing respectful about cutting red tuna properly and putting it on sushi if you're driving the animal to extinction.
+ Spices, in general, are great. Which is why a lot of the original salaries where paid in spice. I assume you are not against all spices, so there is a line you draw. Pepper and salt are ok, but cinnamon and curcumin are too overpowering. It just seems like being under exposed to some spices and finding them strong. In europe cinammon is mostly used in desserts so some dishes that use it in India can seem a bit off putting at first, but the truth is, that it has a great pairing with many dishes. Being unused to something and calling it bad are two very different things.
Considering the things you prefer, Peruvian cuisine will be down your ally. Of all the South American cuisines its the most delicate. Maybe that is a more gentle introduction into their flavour profiles. Same way lebanese is a good introduction to Middle eastern. Once you "get" those, the more extreme versions, like Afghan food, or Oaxaca mexican flavours.
Not sure if there is a good introduction to Indian food, as their flavour profiles are all very stark. But the British versions are all tailored for european tastes, so maybe that is a good stepping stone instead of curry snacks.
To answer some of your questions.
> do you study harvest dates for certain vegetable and fruit cultivars or trialed slaughter periods/season of livestock?
Did not have to, grew up buying in a market, so only seasonal stuff was available. You kinda get a knack for when things will be coming around. Now that I live near a supermarket I am sad seeing certain veggies all year round.
> I'd ask what have you done in this Industry to speak with such an arrogant tone?
Nothing at all, but I have no issue with personal preferences. But putting down thousands of chefs work as inferior is not an opinion, its just factually wrong.
> Nabemono. And yes, that is true but have you ever made one?
I was thinking more in line of Okonomiyaki and its thousands of variations, not really a respectful dish, more of a "lets see what we have around". (Also I meant to say hotchpotch and the autocorrector put hot pot, just saw why you mentioned nabemono).
> In europe cinammon is mostly used in desserts so some dishes that use it in India can seem a bit off putting at first, but the truth is, that it has a great pairing with many dishes. Being unused to something and calling it bad are two very different things.
Can you suggest something that goes well with Cinnamon?
It's one of the spices I find the most intriguing! So common for desserts, even in the US, but not for savory food!
> Can you suggest something that goes well with Cinnamon?
Sure! I have to admit is not a spice I use too much. (Brings back nostalgia of rice puddings etc). But it is quite an autumnal spice, so think of it like something that would go well with those flavours.
For example pork loins with apple can use a little clove or cinammon if you want to have it enhance the sweetness of the apple.
It also works well with nice autumn soups, butternut squash, pumpkin, carrot. All of those can have some cinammon and round the flavours of it.
It is also heavily used in some Indian dishes. Very flavourful sauces with gram masala, can again have cloves and/or cinammon added. I think it's quite varied the spices that different regions use but anything from butter chicken, to Korma to a more European style tikka masala can work with cinammon in certain combinations. But because the sauces are quite rich, you will notice it less.
To add to what Arkhaine_kupo said: In Southeast Asia, you can find cinnamon used in beef dishes, such as in beef rendang found in Indonesia and Malaysia. Typically a 2-3 sticks of cinnamon are thrown in, along with coconut milk, curry leaves, and more.
Cinnamon is also added to chicken or mutton, such as in varuval (Malaysian dish adapted from a South Indian one).
Over in China (and also in Chinese communities in Southeast Asia): There's the Chinese five-spices, used a lot in BBQ pork. It typically has cinnamon and cloves along with star anises and two other spices.
If you have more questions about any of this, let me know!
Yeah, 5-spice powder is usually dominated by cinnamon. I've been using cinnamon (along with szechuan peppercorn and toasted cumin) to make the garlic chili oil for biang noodles at home. Similar to how it helps in a garam masala, it adds a lot of depth when it's mixed with a vinegar and soy sauce. It's really an amazing depth that it adds. It also plays a part in making hoisin sauce.
Which bad ingredients is butter chicken covering up? From what I recall the origins are to use yesterday's leftover tandoori chicken in restaurants. In which case it is reusing ingredients instead of throwing them away, not covering anything up.
Funny how it worked and people try to recreate that flavor when they don't have leftover tandoori chicken.
You know, you could have ended your post by the end of the third paragraph and everything would have been fine. Your post would have been one's honest opinion about a particular cuisine, that's all. Even though I sincerely disagree with you (being an Indian man born and raised on Indian-style cooking) but at least I'd respect your opinion.
Then you treated your dislike of Indian food as some sort of objective statement, alleging most non-Indian folk like it only because of political wokeness. You illustrated that point by bringing up your sous chef's love of Indian food, despite this weird idea that his Aryan physical features should have marred his palette for life when it comes to food rich in spices.
There's some troubling racial undertones peppered throughout your post, let alone some serious notes of snobbery. Honestly, you seem like a bright guy, so I hope you take this moment to do some seriously deep introspection here. As it stands right now, it seems to me you harbor some old-fashioned beliefs regarding non-white people that are just factually wrong.
Thank you for this comment. I can't believe I have to read someone say Indian food looks like excrement and then have the first response be that the comment about Spain is the most offensive... Indian food is incredible, its delicious and vibrant. I think it is obvious the original commenter has never tried to cook Indian food from scratch and so has never had the opportunity to taste Indian food at each stage of the cooking process and learn how beautifully the flavors play on each other as the taste profile of the dish grows in complexity throughout the cooking process. Nor did they apparently care to read the article which says essentially the same thing. Such a gross elitist comment and blatant racism it is odd how it encapsulates the original shift away from spices. Huh.
I think this is something that has to be pointed to you. I grew up eating Indian food and it never crossed my mind. Came to the US, suddenly Indian food was smelly and looked unappetizing because that was the popular opinion.
There is a lot of reflect on in this comment, if you care to do the work. You are mistaking your personal preference for a certain style of food for the "western norm" which is obviously not correct because you also exclude the French tradition, which most would consider part of the heart of western cooking. You then suggest that people with different preferences are either less informed (not a chef) or less sincere (wokeness) than you. I think you will find that neither is the case: there are many who are just as well informed as you who sincerely hold a different opinion.
> There is a lot of reflect on in this comment, if you care to do the work. You are mistaking your personal preference for a certain style of food for the "western norm" which is obviously not correct because you also exclude the French tradition, which most would consider part of the heart of western cooking. You then suggest that people with different preferences are either less informed (not a chef) or less sincere (wokeness) than you. I think you will find that neither is the case: there are many who are just as well informed as you who sincerely hold a different opinion.
We all worked in the same kitchen and at no time would the overwhelming use of spices and herbs (as in Indian cusiene) enhance our recipes when we sourced local, organic, grass fed animal proteins and seasonal vegetables.
I'm not discounting French cuisine, it's an over-valued archaic relic but a cornerstone of Western gastronomy nonetheless, what I am saying is that even Bocuse (the Godfather of modern French gastronomy) followed the adage that sauces were there to cover up mediocre cuts of meat.
Where as we worked in a farm to table whose entire point of existence was to do less and thus deliver a better dish as the work had already been done by the farmer who took care to deliver and pay close attention to quality over quantity. Something I knew well and learned first hand, and took very serious.
I did nearly my entire career in farm to tables, with short stints working under Michelin chefs or staging at James Beard awarded fine dining restaurants, and to be honest none of it was compelling enough for me to stay--they all tried too hard to carve their initials in to the clients stomach than take the time to focus and source for better ingredient that needed less inputs. Covering a dish with $7 worth of micro flowers doesn't make something 'good,' especially if that was sourced from a generic meat section from Shamrock's catalog.
Moreover, I also did a Biodyanamic apprenticeship in horticulture alongside all of that while I worked in European kitchens and then ran a Biodynmic farm in Hawaii after I completed my apprenticeship.
So, while you may have reason to think it's unfounded snobbery without all of his in mind, I would ask: have you ever gardened, let alone farmed? I used to ask the same to my fellow cooks and chefs, and the resounding response in all but one case was: no. And he had only began after he joined us.
Fantastic to hear you have that Michelin/James Beard experience. And as someone that does, I'm sure you know that style of cooking (esp. much of Michelin) is not the entirety of gastronomy.
I spend my time around the Michelin/50 Best chef crowd, so I hear often this "respect the ingredients" mindset, but it's just one mindset. It's limiting to think of spices "covering up" a bad ingredient, when one can also think about the dish in totality - which includes everything from spices to how its cooked to the quality of the main ingredients.
One can enjoy Asador Etxebarri, and the technical excellence on how the chef expertly plays with fire to complement the main ingredient, and also enjoy mole from Oaxaca, rendang from Indonesia, and so on.
You can also combine both. I have had phenomenal laksa in the Basque country, playing on the bright flavors of Asian spices and the amazing product (seafood) found in the Basque country.
Gastronomy is that full breath of that experience. We can prefer more one of the other, but you're cheating yourself to be so dismissive.
Such a weird take. When the likeness of Bourdain and Ramsay are criticized for appropriation, you come up with a completely opposite reality - that some food enthusiasts are simply politically woke. I've lived in both deeply homogenous rural farmlands of the Midwestern US and major liberal centers in Europe for long periods of time, the former has a far larger affinity towards spicy food - even moreso towards foreign options like Chinese, Thai, Mexican. I can absolutely guarantee it has nothing to do with wokeness/inclusiveness and simply the fact that it tastes good. I can still enjoy a wide variety of cuisines and still appreciate their flavors, whether or not it's spice heavy - my palette is not ruined. You're very much a snob.
You had a work colleague who, we can assume with the same background as yours, delved into Indian cuisine through his partner and enjoyed discovering new flavors - and all you remember is how annoying he was.
I can’t fathom how a professional cook/chef would not be curious enough to try and understand his excitement. Unless you worry more about being a fac-simile of a French chef stereotype than actually care about food, it’s history and the wonderful experiences it can create.
> One of my sous chefs dated an Indian women and despite being a blond, blue eyed German/Polish mixed male from the midwest he was the most vociferous about for Indian cuisine I have ever met, even Indians
Why would somebody's hair/eye color matter when it comes to their culinary preferences?
> Why would somebody's hair/eye color matter when it comes to their culinary preferences?
It's often cultural guilt, in my experience. The most non-Indian person often feels compelled to be the loudest voice in some sort of over-compensation for acceptance amongst those he seeks validation from. Food is seriously the most political thing in existence,.
Also, I don't think St. Louis, where he was from, was exactly a beacon for Indian cuisine, either.
I've seen it enough times to see through it.
Then again all my German and Austrian friends loved Indian food and had all traveled there at one point, most were vegan and vegetarian which kind makes sense, but still was kind of repetitive in theme.
"It couldn't possibly be that someone genuinely likes the flavors, aromas, textures, and diversity of a cuisine. No, it's cultural guilt."
Saying 'food is political' doesn't mean anything. Of course it's 'political', just as all art is 'political'. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that I like rock music because I have 'cultural guilt', or because I'm 'over-compensating' - as if I'm trying hard to like it so I'm "woke".
All your comments in this thread have a serious lack of foundation. As it turns out, people generally just find Indian food either tasty (usually on account of the spices, salt, and oil - like most food) or convenient (for vegetarians or vegans). You can read as much as you like into it, but at this point you're just making guesses and shoe-horning it into the culture war topic de jour.
> The most non-Indian person often feels compelled to be the loudest voice in some sort of over-compensation for acceptance amongst those he seeks validation from.
from a previous comment:
> Whereas in Italian and Japanese cuisine (both being my repertoire) a greater emphasis is in exalting humble ingredients with skill, prep and elaboration and an emphasis and an eye for in-season quality and utilizing them in smaller portions than other countries...
We're all entitled to opinions about things, especially something as subjective as food. But this sounds a lot like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
You need to do some introspection and ask yourself why you assume these things about people and food. This is not healthy.
It is not normal to make these assumptions about what people like because of assumptions about them due to where they are from.
It is bizarre, judgemental, and completely unsubstantiated. Let people like food (and things in general), stop over-complicating things and injecting your own political biases into it. Everything in life is political, what of it? Humans need to eat.
Also, good food and good food prep is not limited to any country or nationality.
I don't think you actually addressed my question to be honest. In your previous comment you introduced racial undertones that it seems to me you're now trying to gloss over by making it about culture instead.
> It's often cultural guilt
Cultural guilt over what precisely?
> The most non-Indian person
What precisely makes a person more or less Indian?
You're being downvoted for having an extremely bad take on why people like food.
Regarding kimchi: I had never eaten it until I was ~22. Now I love it, can't get enough of it. Go through jars of it pretty fast, and I miss numerous dishes from Korea. The growth in popularity is a simple explanation: Korea in general has exploded in popularity due to kpop & korean dramas. So it's reasonable that it has placed korean food on more peoples' radars. It's reasonable to say that not everyone likes kimchi, as it's pretty pungent and the typical variety is a bit spicy, but I love that smell.
Also you are completely wrong about Korean cuisine. I have no idea how you could say it's "one dimensional", unless you were predisposed to not like it in the first place. Korean food is diverse and in general, very good.
My brother worked at a popular Thai place, so he picked up some good recipes. As an American, we've both grown up exposed to many X-American food styles. The idea of us liking i.e. indian food because of politics is absurd to the point of being comical.
It's so condescending and arrogant to assume that -liking food- must have to do with one's political viewpoints. Just because you don't find something appealing doesn't mean nobody else does. I believe that you are projecting something and you don't realize it.
Just my perspective: being diplomatic practically never includes the term "wokeness". The term is pretty much exclusively disparaging. You're accusing people of being insincere in their preferences.
The word is a catchall ad hominem, used to dismiss any argument such that people don't really mean what they say, without having to address their actual argument at all. I'd suggest that any time you're tempted to use that in an argument, you might consider skipping that and talking instead about the actual thing under discussion.
Indian food is amazing, specially if you're vegetarian.
If someone would ask me to choose a menu for 5 days out of a week, for breakfast, lunch and dinner between a 5* Michelin chef or yellow lentil curry with 2 rotis and a coconut sembal, I would go with the curry. Any day.
When you look at vegetarian cuisine outside of india, with very few exceptions in terms of restaurants and few exceptions in terms of dishes, it looks like unimaginative dimwits took to the pans.
> When you look at vegetarian cuisine outside of india, with very few exceptions in terms of restaurants and few exceptions in terms of dishes, it looks like unimaginative dimwits took to the pans.
If you've only experienced chinese food at the typical US chinese restaurant, then you may be deceived as to just how wonderful the underlying sauces and flavors can be. But if you get a chance to explore the space, you may want to look at the the "Chinese Cooking Demistified"[1] youtube channel, and on youtube there are 2 seasons of what look like culinary tourism bait called "Flavorful Origins"[2] (which is not exclusively vegetarian) I think that when you start to see some of the incredible available flavors in just the 2 regions they've covered (neither of which are szechuan, hunan, or shanghai, which are better known for their cuisine in the west), you may re-consider the sentiment I quoted.
Which in no way diminishes how incredible the vegetarian cuisine of india is.
Ah, what I meant was more, there's some dishes that are vegetarian and good (plenty of soups and small "side-dishes" that are delicious but they're usually not "full-meal" kind). And there's also some very good vegetarian restaurants but they're few and far between.
I don't have much experience with chinese food outside of the regular more westernised versions you mention (which I do like), I tried a more typical chinese (at least that was how it was described to me) restaurant once and indeed the food and menu was different from the normal chinese restaurants I knew.
China is also huge so I imagine it has a lot of variety throughout with completely different takes on it. Vietnam, Thailand and such also have interesting vegetarian dishes.
I like all of them and I also like italian and many others but what I meant is as far as I've tasted and seen in terms of vegetarian food nothing comes really close to the variety in and around India (Nepal, Sri Lanka, etc), probably due to cultural roots based on vegetarian traditions?
And this difference is also in terms of like, what you can get in an end of street corner, almost stall like place, to eat (not even a "restaurant") - some of the best vegetarian meals I've had where in places like this.
I would like to visit china some day and see for myself for sure.
1. The yellow lentil dish is not usually called a curry (google the word 'curry', it is a much abused omnibus term for many Indian dishes). It is called a dal, as in "dal fry" or "dal tadka" (and not dhal(l) either :)
2. Coconut (or any) sambal is not an Indian dish, it is SE Asian, like Malaysian, although some Indian chutneys may resemble sambals in taste. India has a similar-sounding dish called sambar, but it is completely different. It is a kind of thick soupy dal which is sour (from tamarind or lemon or tomato) and often has some vegetable pieces in it. (Spices too, of course.) Usually served to go with rice, as in sambar rice, or with idli or dosa(i).
Anyway, nice to hear you like dal and rotis that much (e.g. 5 days a week). I do, too (with a sabji as well), and the same for rice, dal and sabji (a vegetable curry or dry veg dish). Those two combos are what the bulk of millions of Indian live on, day in and day out, even today. Except that some substitute some millet[1] or other for the rice or wheat (roti). And those can taste even better. But that is another story.
[1] India has many millets, of which jowar and bajra are probably best known, but others are making a resurgence these days.
In some ways they are more nutritious, and also, many need less resources (like water) than rice and wheat do.
2) this was in Sri Lanka, they did also have sambal that is closer to the one with onions done in Malasya/Indonesia but this one was with coconut and no onions, more dry than wet, just fine strands of what seems semi-dry coconut with spices (smashed chillis?) and they served it in many regular places along the dal tadka?
The idea I have is that it was called sambal as well but I might be wrong or be the tourist name? (and india is big and has many different types of different cuisines - one thing is common throughout though, vegetarian food is good and varied anywhere)
Well yes, I actually ate it many times (not for lack of other choices but it was a dish I enjoyed eating repeatedly). There's others I liked a lot but can't remember the names if I'm being honest. I know it when I taste them though ahah.
Thank you for correcting me, I have to go back and do a proper research and take notes of it.
> In some ways they are more nutritious
This is one of the things that I think separates vegetarian cuisine well done from others. You never feel like the dishes are lacking in taste, texture, or that you haven't got enough "food" to keep you well fed while still being usually light on the body.
Na, that is different. If you search "sri lanka yellow curry coconut sambal" you will see, it's just coconut fibers/chunks smashed with chilli I think, a very pale red looking thing that is usually served as a complement to the dal.
Ha ha. No, to be clear, I didn't mean it in a critical sense. We all make mistakes and don't know a lot of things that some others do. It was in that spirit that I was sharing stuff I knew a bit better, due to being Indian.
>1) yeap, confirmed that's it
Cool.
>2) this was in Sri Lanka, they did also have sambal that is closer to the one with onions done in Malasya/Indonesia but this one was with coconut and no onions, more dry than wet, just fine strands of what seems semi-dry coconut with spices (smashed chillis?) and they served it in many regular places along the dal tadka?
Ah, that probably explains it. Sri Lanka cuisine had some Malay peninsular influence from the Sri Lankan Malays (a misnomer, look it up).
The sambal you are may be from that origin. I was surprised because sambal is not generally used in India, as I said (and wrongly assumed you ate that dish in India). That sambal sounds like it may taste good, BTW - coconut and red chillies. Rich flavor from coconut and heat from chillies. Maharashtra in India has a similar one called lasun chutney, made from garlic and red chillies and some other common Indian spices, maybe cumin and coriander (powder, not leaf). A wet paste. Goes well with Maharashtrian dishes, as well as with parathas. Use in small amounts, it is strong and has a delayed effect.
>one thing is common throughout though, vegetarian food is good and varied anywhere)
True. Indian vegetarian food is underrated, IMO. One reason is that you only get a few of the huge variety of veg dishes in Indian restaurants, whether in India or abroad. Only the most popular ones. But plenty of others are tasty, some might say more so than the restaurant ones.
E.g.: You usually never get a dry or wet cabbage curry in most restaurants - as an individually bought dish, in a la carte menus, I mean, because, you do get it as an item in veg thalis - and that currry is a damn tasty dish. There are many more like that. Only way to experience them is to get invited to an Indian friend's house for food.
I wish India and countries abroad both had more restaurants serving such items, particularly regional ethnic ones and traditional ones. They could be a big hit with people. In fact, some of those recipes will be lost in another generation or two, likely. A food startup (though maybe not high scale) and a food museum opportunity there.
>Well yes, I actually ate it many times
Dals are great. Good umami food and good protein too, although to be complete, they must be had along with cereals like wheat or rice, in roughly a 1:3 ratio (1 dal : 3 cereal units).
Read this in a book from the Indian Institute of Nutrition, a govt. research body, long back. Turns out our ancestors may have discovered that point empirically, because that is the rough ratio in which we tend to eat that combo. Only then do you get the amino acid profile that humans need for complete protein (from veg foods) - so said that book.
>Thank you for correcting me, I have to go back and do a proper research and take notes of it.
Welcome :) Good idea to take notes.
>> In some ways they are more nutritious
>This is one of the things that I think separates vegetarian cuisine well done from others. You never feel like the dishes are lacking in taste, texture, or that you haven't got enough "food" to keep you well fed while still being usually light on the body.
I agree. And usually easy to digest too. Only a few items like chana (chickpea) and say rajma (red kidney beans) and bajra (a millet) are a bit heavy. But nutritious.
And there is a certain not quite describable good feeling you get (at least I do, but I think many others too) after eating an Indian veg thali meal. (I've heard many others mention this when coming out of restaurants after eating a thali meal.) It seems to be more than just satiety. I don't get the same feeling even after eating an a la carte Indian veg meal of individual dishes, like say roti, dal and some sabji, or the same but with rice instead of roti. Only with veg thalis (North or South Indian) do I get that feeling. Guessing here, but I think it may be due to the particular combinations of ingredients and spices and masalas used, many of which are traditional and Ayurvedic in nature. (The rasam, curd or buttermilk may also be part of the cause.) I have heard that there are a few books that talk about this connection, but don't know the names. Want to read them.
Thanks for those links. Interesting. Yes, you're right. I learned that only recently. But IMO my original point still holds true if a person eats a mainly cereal- or mainly pulse-based diet (even if it includes other items like vegetables and fruit). Because then the body does not get enough of some needed amino acids to preserve and combine with others later. Of course this assumes they do not eat much of any other complete protein like dairy products or eggs. But that was my original premise, because I was talking about vegetarian food (and in the context of Indian vegetarian food). Almost all Indian vegetarians do eat dairy products (via tea, coffee, milk, buttermilk, yogurt, paneer, etc.), but not commonly enough to provide a significant amount of protein, is my guesstimate. Can't say about how many people eat eggs (I know many do), but it may be a significant percentage, and more so nowadays with more Westernization. But my comment was mainly about those who don't eat much of either dairy or eggs. Punjab may be a special case because they tend to eat a lot of paneer and drink a lot of lassi there, even if they are vegetarian.
I know that vegetarian means plants plus dairy plus eggs in the West, but am using the term in the Indian usage, where it usually means plants only, plus some dairy.
> The sambal you are may be from that origin. I was surprised because sambal is not generally used in India, as I said (and wrongly assumed you ate that dish in India). That sambal sounds like it may taste good, BTW - coconut and red chillies. Rich flavor from coconut and heat from chillies.
Yeap, I kinda lump Sri Lanka as if it is India when it comes to food because I thought the food would be similar to South india, but like Nepal and others it probably has plenty of overlap but also plenty of differences.
(and yes, it's really good I can assure you - the dal part is almost sweet, I mean it's not sweet it's just, light or something, and the sambal contrasts really well with it, for my more moderate spicy tolerance it was a perfect combination)
I don't think I ever tried (knowingly at least) Maharashtra food - I do tend to not go for the spiciest/hot things though.
> But plenty of others are tasty, some might say more so than the restaurant ones.
Yeah I think this is everywhere. Even some places that are more "local" where you'll get roti coming out of the stone oven and there isn't even a menu. Hard to beat.
> although to be complete, they must be had along with cereals like wheat or rice
Yeap, but curries/dal/etc always goes really well with rice because you have "cream". And with roti too. Always.
> Guessing here, but I think it may be due to the particular combinations of ingredients and spices and masalas used, many of which are traditional and Ayurvedic in nature.
I won't say it's because of it, as I have no idea, but it could well be because of following Ayurvedic ideas - by what I heard it has a pretty descriptive and coherent system when it comes to food. I also think that vegetarian is just usually lighter on your body even when it comes to rich/highly nutritional ingredients.
When you say North Indian to which part specifically you're referring to?
> When you say North Indian to which part specifically you're referring to?
In this context (veg thalis), I used "North Indian" as a loose generic term to refer to the kind of veg thalis that you get in literally the Northern, or roughly, the upper half of India, stretching from Madhya Pradesh upwards through Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana, etc. (All those are central or northern Indian states.)
There are probably some common things and some differences in the thalis you get in those areas, but speaking broadly, they can be considered as one region (Northern). As in, you'll typically get either chapati/roti and then rice, or just chapati/roti, with a dal (tuar, mung, or chana dal) or a whole pulse/legume (mung, chana, lobia or rajma) gravy item, and one to three dry or wet vegetables dishes. (The exact vegetable items you get, and the style of preparing them and the dals or whole pulses, may vary between subregions.) May get a salad or a raita or a chutney too. Pickle/achar and papad, ditto. And a dessert, and buttermilk, or lassi. Depends on how elaborate the food place and meal is. I usually prefer fewer items, myself. Otherwise the food gets too heavy. One tends to overeat if not careful, which I don't like, even though, as you said, the food is light overall, so it digests somewhat fast, and you feel lighter again soon.
I will make any other replies later due to some work I have, in a day or two. But good discussion, thanks. Enjoyed it :)
Damn, autocorrect.
It changed "ate" to "are" in above sentence. It even autocorrects the same thing (wrongly, again) after you edit its previous wrongly autocorrected word. Gets it wrong more often than not. Even converts my right spellings into wrong ones. Started after recent update. Disabled it now.
Is this any different from saying that neo-minimalism is "better" than neo-expressionism?
Your criteria for evaluating food seems to put heavy emphasis on visuals (as you mention indian dishes look post-digested) and freshness of ingredients, but these criteria are not universal. As the article mentioned, one big difference is that Indian cuisine is deeply intertwined with ayurvedic medicine (like hot spices being good for you if you're lethargic,) and thus emphasizing the health benefits of said spices. And that's not even getting into how flavor itself is highly cultural.
With this in mind, attempting to apply any objective judgement is moot, because your success criteria are entirely different.
If you were trying to be diplomatic you wouldn't have included the word "woke".
Different people like different things for different reasons.
> refusal to follow this norm
That's why it's called a norm, not a universal law.
(Random personal anecdote: I last visited San Francisco a long time ago, in the early 2000s, but as a Brit it seemed to me that there were hardly any Indian restaurants compared to what I was used to. Of course, British-Indian cuisine is a laundered version of Indian cuisine itself .. and the restaurants are more likely to be run by Bangladeshis. What is authenticity, really?)
> (Random personal anecdote: I last visited San Francisco a long time ago, in the early 2000s, but as a Brit it seemed to me that there were hardly any Indian restaurants compared to what I was used to. Of course, British-Indian cuisine is a laundered version of Indian cuisine itself .. and the restaurants are more likely to be run by Bangladeshis. What is authenticity, really?)
It seems to have gotten much better since – I've been in San Francisco these past two years and have had some really good Indian food. I had an amazing tasting menu at a restaurant called August 1 Five (that unfortunately seems to have closed during the pandemic) with things that I've only had in India (like panipuri.)
I think you mostly getting downvoted because you are trying to assert preference as somehow empirically supported, and using a weak argument-from-authority to try and justify it.
It doesn't really matter if most of the commenters here have far less industry experience than you; obviously it isn't hard to find far more qualified industry insiders than you who would disagree with your take. I'm not sure how much it matters though, cuisines don't live in restaurant kitchens anyway.
There is nothing wrong with having a food philosophy or aesthetic preference and pursuing it as far as you can. Pretending it is somehow demonstrably superior or some how "more mature" is at best problematic, and usually foolish.
You say "I cannot stomach Indian food"; fine - accept that it's your loss and move on. Trying to turn it into a virtue isn't going to get you far.
Perhaps to counter that take, I've been lucky enough to experience first rate offerings from all of the cuisines you mention and universally some of it has been really great for me. Does that just mean I'm somehow limited by a plebian palate, and somehow if I was just better educated I would have likes some of it less?
This is such an amusing take. I upvoted just because I think this just falls within acceptable level of discourse on HN (not inflammatory etc.), and I bet there are quite a few folks out there who feel the same way as you do.
I think you're partly right - Indian food does not yet have the snobbery you would find in other cuisines - yet. But there a few chefs out there, like Gaggan Anand, who are working to make it more palatable in an "upscale" setting. But I wholly disagree with the idea Indian food uses spices to mask poor quality ingredients or preparations. Perhaps you haven't got a chance to try the more elaborate preparations, but there are well documented ways of cooking many dishes in the "right" way with the "right" mix of ingredients and spices, but most restaurants and households end up using their own judgement for convenience and/or novelty.
Completely agree. I don't think he should be ragged on for his opinion but he presented his opinion as objective truth, based on logic and reason (everyone else's palate is driven by their cultural guilt???), when it was anything but. This definitely rubbed many the wrong way.
Here's how I see this. I'm not Indian but my parents loved making curry. To them, the point about curry is not about complementing the flavor of the meat or the vegetables. The curry itself is the actual true dish, the flavor you want to consume. It is the primary ingredient. You can really have curry without anything else. Any addons were simply added nutrition, nothing to do with masking poor quality.
The simple fact is, some people appreciate the taste of meat, and some people appreciate the taste of spices. You can enjoy a lightly seasoned ribeye if you're looking for a pure beefy taste or have a good meal of curry, having either is not the end all be all of flavor.
Your over wrought and stilted writing does nothing to obscure the reality that you are a fucking moron.
India is roughly twice the square miles and three times the population of Western Europe, encompassing some 2,000 distinct cultures.
The notion that you can make any sort of comment about "Indian" cooking is absurd. Lets be real, you have probably had food from at most 2-3 regions. "Curry" isn't even an Indian concept, its a fucking British one based on a misinterpertation of the name of at most 2-3 dishes.
If there is any chance this post can be traced back to your real identity you should delete it as you look like a fool.
Oh please, get off your high horse. Japanese cuisine is anything but sustainable, and has plenty of sauces and every cuisine in the whole world, including your vaunted Italian cuisine, has dishes that hide bad quality food, as other commenters have pointed out.
I feel definite closet racism vibes from this post especially the emphasis on the anecdote with your blonde haired blue eyed Aryan God sous-chef.
Pizza and patsa, your food is so overrated. It was my student diet as it required so little effort or ability. Give me some spicy Indian over that any day. (My Chile con carne recipe is very similar to spaghetti bolognese, with some chillies added and rice for spaghetti).
> Serving richly spiced stews was no longer a status symbol for Europe's wealthiest families — even the middle classes could afford to spice up their grub. "So the elite recoiled from the increasing popularity of spices," Ray says. "They moved on to an aesthetic theory of taste. Rather than infusing food with spice, they said things should taste like themselves. Meat should taste like meat, and anything you add only serves to intensify the existing flavors."
I wonder if you can find similar cycles in, e.g., home furnishings? The elite get their fancy furs and rugs from $foreign for $$$, eventually the trade improves, prices drop, the poors start furnishing with fancy furs and rugs, the elite move towards shiny minimalism, rinse and repeat.
(cf just about anything technology-wise, I suppose)
Yes, you can absolutely see that same cycle everywhere, especially with anything fashion-related. And there are several layers, where every social class tries to imitate the one above them and distinguish themselves from the one below.
Some of them do, actually. Like with a tiny crocodile image on a Crocodile-brand t-shirt, or I guess even subtler signs, at the higher end, like no brand name or logo at all - but some way of signalling the (expensive) brand, to those in the know. Maybe by the shade of color of the garment, or the cut, or some other sign. But they do :)
I don't know all the ways, I don't move in those circles, but have read about it. Human nature (like to show off, among other things) runs deep.
Edit: of course, some others really don't feel the need, being very secure in their eliteness, so they don't, as you say. And some others go to the opposite extreme of dressing down-market (so to speak), again as a signal that they can afford to do so.
That is common in many other Asian countries, in Indonesia, some would bake fish as it is without anything, then you would add whatever you want when you take your cut to your plate, salt and other spices. It is a legitimate way of thinking about purity of foods and drinks I think. Coffee connoisseurs would not dilute the coffee with sugar nor cardamon, in the Levant for example.
I see ingredient purity as a cultural thing. Every culture has some version of it, especially as a form of conspicuous consumption. Wine, tea, and coffee immediately come to mind.
Chinese people can be absolute snobs about tea, but the same people like bubble tea which isn't made with high quality tea because you wouldn't taste the difference through the milk and sugar. Both are delicious in their own way.
Just speaking for my own diet (mostly Chinese), it's common to steam a fresh fish with a bit of salt, ginger, and scallion, and let the fish speak for itself. But the very next meal might be a curry or some other dish that relies heavily on the sauce. But then none of that carries over to making steak (buy high quality, cook neurotically), or making gumbo (get a few specific parts right but otherwise it's a high-tolerance dish), or making coffee.
There are definitely different paradigms for food, and I think if someone is unable or unwilling to appreciate that, it's their loss.
>Coffee connoisseurs would not dilute the coffee with sugar
This seems to be a regional thing. In Australia I haven't actually seen anyone ever add sugar to coffee and these people aren't huge coffee enthusiasts. Other than premixed ice coffee.
It does not really account for the fact that most of the population was peasants.
I would be really surprised that spices were a big part of cuisine. Maybe in the middle-class indeed, but that was still a really small part of the population.
I hardly got that feeling reading the article. The main point is called out in the middle -
> "The real question, then, is why the wealthy, powerful West — with unprecedented access to spices from its colonies — became so fixated on this singular understanding of flavor," Srinivas says.
Interesting, the indulgence/purity pendulum again. This seems to have happened a lot. The overindulgence of, say, Elizabethan outfits, all ruffs and slashes, versus much more staid black later on. Men inventing the high heeled boot then it switching to be a women's article of clothing. The ridiculous over-influence of France in all of these things, especially cooking. And of course the big indulgence/puritan fight that dominated Europe from the 1500s to the 1800s, the Reformation.
Especially Escoffier did set the ground on how to run a big restaurant kitchen efficiently.
I'm sure part of it was France influence, but I wonder how much of it was also due to people who had a big influence in a specific field. They happened to be French, but they could have been from another country as well.
Well if you look at Chinese cuisine or even better, Cantonese one and dim sum, you realize that it was really to extract the most from scarce ingredients, not much meats or vegetables with a lot of carbs, and lots of seasoning to cover low quality ingredients.
(I don't say the cuisine is bad nor not tasty, I am only talking about the cooking part).
Chinese cuisine is very regional. It is certainly not about "lots of seasoning" or "low quality ingredients". Like all cuisines it requires good ingredients to get good results.
Dim Sum do not use lots of seasoning, they try to work with the flavours and textures of the ingredients. This is a common theme in Chinese cuisine.
And I absolutely love that about Asian cooking. Some ingredients do not taste good on their own, and would be thrown away in western cultures, but they really shine with the right spices and seasoning. Organ meat in a hot pot is amazing.
If you look at Chinese cuisine, you'll probably find that trying to compare it to say "Italian cuisine" doesn't really work - probably better to compare it to "European cuisine" and try and capture the breadth and depth.
> They moved on to an aesthetic theory of taste. Rather than infusing food with spice, they said things should taste like themselves. Meat should taste like meat, and anything you add only serves to intensify the existing flavors.
That sounds a lot like Japanese cuisine too, so we are not alone.
yes, japanese cuisine can sometimes be extreme in this regard. it's also delicious, but only if you're being mindful of your eating. if you want to stuff your face, japanese is not necessarily going to give you good bang-for-buck. korean, chinese, thai, indian, etc. tend to be better at delivering flavor in bulk (also delicious, but differently so).
i still fondly remember the home-cooked meals of my japanese friend's mom. simple yet exquisite.
if they had snobbish enough a few decades earlier, we would all be spared a hundred years of colonization, the Great Bengal Famine as well as the single most dangerous nuclear flashpoint that exists in the world right now.
India and Pakistan border dispute, both having nukes bc the British split them up into Hindu and Muslim nations. I don't agree on a bunch of levels, but that is what they are getting at. For starters, the border dispute between India and China is much "hotter" right now.
It's interesting to note that my Indian wife had trouble wrapping her head around the concept of appreciating the meaty flavor of a hamburger with minimal seasoning when she first came to the United States
Without speaking for your wife, but speaking for myself and my parents, its NOT that we had any trouble wrapping our head around it, just that meat by itself didn't taste that good. Even in the US it is common to add other ingredients, like cheese, tomatoes, onions and tomato sauce and mustard to the burger. Otherwise you're just eating cheap meat and bread, and there's nothing noble about that IMO.
Even at fancier places which ground up better cuts of meat and bake their own bread, there are condiments added to the burger, both in the patty and after it is cooked.
That's the thing, in a burger with little else I find there is a taste in the "meatiness", partially that's a matter of texture and moisture, although there's some other qualities of meatiness which I am not qualified to elaborate on. I do like having some seasoning to the meat, at least a little salt, but with an underseasoned burger with decent quality meat and not overcooked, there's still something there that I appreciate, whereas my wife would find nothing redeemable.
My wife has the better tongue for many things, for example there are many vegetable dishes she likes which I find boring, I think the water-i-ness of certain vegetables bothers me more and she is able to look past it to see the other flavors. But I still find I am better able to appreciate that aspect of meatiness.
What I can’t stand is when cuisines that rely primarily on the taste of the main ingredients, say Italian, are defaced with hot sauce and other atrocities.
Speaking of snobbery: the reason why "Indian food is so delicious" is that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. Or, more appropriately: "de gustibus non est disputandum". I know lots of people who really don't like Indian food. (luckily, I'm not one of them).
Perhaps something that the cited studies overlooked: surely, one reason a lot of Indian dishes are tasty is their high calorie content. Hmmm, sweet calories.
For instance, check out Vah Reh Vah chef's recipe for Dal Makhani [1]: the amount of oil, butter and cream combined in a single pot might well clog your arteries just by watching the video. ;-). Yet, I'll be damned if I didn't want to try it right away!
I agree with you about most parts; specially about more calories = delicious food.
However, most Indian dishes have a restaurant version and a home-made version. The former is enriched with all kind of ingredients that make it heavy and calorie rich but super tasty while the latter is simpler and more suitable as daily food.
Dal makhani is usually a "party dish" which is not consumed on a regular basis. However, it too has a simpler version that is not loaded with butter and cream.
Restaurant Indian food is not representative of what people eat everyday. It is too rich and too spicy to eat everyday. Yes of course some people eat it every day, just like some people order pizza every day or eat 3 meals at McDonald's. I hardly think Indian food is the only food that has high calorie content. How much saturated fat and carbs are in a regular McDonald's meal or a Starbucks frappe?
You've got the causation backward here. Snobbery is a tool that people use to assert or maintain social status, or in the attempt to attain it, especially at the margins (if you are clearly enough high status, you don't need it though you may choose it). Like other tools of the type (e.g. etiquette rules) it's main purpose is to define in-group/out-group dynamics in a way that is difficult to counterfeit for one reason or another.
The counter pressure to this is lower social status communities calling it out as a negative, which has some of the flavor you are idiosyncratically aiming for, but can also be group affirming.
Your are right of course (except for what you attribute to me in the first sentence). I was referring to the word "snobbery" and why it is spoken, you were explaining what meaning the word is intended to carry about the people it is used against.
Few people use the word to describe themselves as snobs (except ironically), and it is also rarely used about someone in one's ingroup. Rather, it is a derogatory term we use against others (of higher status or in competing ingroups).
All social groups have signaling systems that allows members (or wannabe members) to display that they are members in good standing of the group. Due to their exclusive nature, these signals may cause distress in outsiders, and perhaps especially outsiders who would secretly like to belong to the group.
And this is my point, when someone uses the term "snobbery", it is often saying something unflattering about the person saying it.
Sometimes, of course, the term is used to refer to someone of equal or lower status. In such cases, the term tends to hold a somewhat different payload, ironically to assert dominance or superiority over that person, by indicating, as you do, that the "snob" behaves has he/she does to disguise his/her uncertainty about his/her status, maybe in a sophisticated way. For instance, someone from an "old money" familiy can use this kind of accusation against "new money" individuals that display their newfound wealth in a "distasteful" manner.
Personally, I hold the opinion that the labeling is probably worse than the snobbery itself, and at least as effective at reinforcing distance and distrust between groups. If I spend time with people 10x as wealthy and twice as educated, I'm not provoked by their social signals (unless they are offensive on purpose). Likewise, if I spend time with people in a third world country that live on a dollar a day, I appricate it when they treat me like a person, not just someone representing the West, even if I do sometimes (without thinking) behave in ways they may seen as snobbery from their perspective.
It means that if you use a lot of spices ( we _usually_ use only black pepper and salt ), you are going to cover the taste of the ingredients you are using, we believe that you need to use good ingredients to have flavourful recipes, if an ingredient tastes bad you shouldn't use it. Also we always search for the balance, there shouldn't be too much meat or too much vegetables, just the right balance where each flavour brings the best of the each other.