I am, quite admittedly, the world's worst foodie. My mantra is - if it tastes good, eat it. I'm not into trendy food things and table presentation (while visually appealing) doesn't really do much for me. I am a stereotypical American man when it comes to food - I want plenty of it. The end.
Having said that, I do like a variety of things. I don't feel like this is a contradiction - food is food, no matter where it's from. And as long as it's good (subjectively) I want it. I admit to being a picky eater - there are things I just don't like, and they're pretty common things around here, things like pickles (too sour) and eggs (unless they're baked into something like a cake and you don't get the eggy texture), fresh tomatoes (or large chunky cooked tomatoes - but tomato sauce/ketchup is good) and cottage cheese (just. gross.).... I don't care about something being "organic" or "GMO" (because what isn't, if you think about it...)
So I came across this article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/29/472309710/when-is-ok-to-profit-cooking-other-culture-s-food-you-weigh-in
I am VERY interested in this topic. Food is so very closely tied to a culture that it may almost be impossible to separate the two. It may be more important than geography or language. In the US, we have different kinds of cultures that have come together and have brought their foods with them. Hearkening back to the mantra - if it tastes good, eat it - we have adopted and/or modified these culture's foods to satisfy our own palate, with amazing results.
In a way, this happens all the time - historically, nearby cultures have shared ideas and have expanded on local themes as a result of commerce and cultural exchange. There was no corn or potatoes in Europe before the Columbian Exchange, for example. No tomato-based marinara sauce. No vanilla ice cream or chocolate bars. I don't think anyone would say that this exchange has been anything but productive - for everyone.
(Man. Now I want some chocolate drizzled over some vanilla ice cream.) ;)
Or has it?
This is part of a large-scale globalization of culture. And while we still call food by their cultures of origin (Thai or Italian or Ethiopian) we often modify it to our own palates and desires, even if it only has a slight hint of what it originally was intended to be.
Case in point: Chicken Tikka Masala. Ever had it? It's delightful with some Basmati rice and naan... Mmmm... According to Epicurious - If there's one dish guaranteed to be on every Indian restaurant menu, it's chicken tikka masala, which is composed of grilled chunks of chicken enveloped in a creamy spiced tomato sauce. What's behind this simple dish's tremendous popularity? "Tomato sauce has universal appeal. When the dish is eaten with naan bread, it's like an Indian version of pizza!" exclaims cookbook author and cooking teacher Julie Sahni, one of the most respected authorities on Indian cooking.
But. It's not Indian.
It's Robin Cook's British National Dish. It's from London. Or perhaps Glasgow. But it is almost certainly NOT from India, even if its origins are from Indian cuisine.
And. So. What?
So what?
Does that make me like it less? Does it cheapen the experience?
Actually, I say no.
Another food type that has evolved recently is this Korean-Mexican fusion. I've written about this before and how I think it's an awesome idea - one I've been experimenting with in my own home for years. I'm also a little bemused with the "cup-bop" (also here)thing - not a fusion, per se, but definitely a clash of the cultures...
I think this kind of thing opens more doors than it closes. It encourages people to try things that may not be 100% authentic or "pure" or whatever, but strive to appeal to a wider audience. Plus, it's just good...
And if it's good, eat it.
Having said that, I do like a variety of things. I don't feel like this is a contradiction - food is food, no matter where it's from. And as long as it's good (subjectively) I want it. I admit to being a picky eater - there are things I just don't like, and they're pretty common things around here, things like pickles (too sour) and eggs (unless they're baked into something like a cake and you don't get the eggy texture), fresh tomatoes (or large chunky cooked tomatoes - but tomato sauce/ketchup is good) and cottage cheese (just. gross.).... I don't care about something being "organic" or "GMO" (because what isn't, if you think about it...)
So I came across this article:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/29/472309710/when-is-ok-to-profit-cooking-other-culture-s-food-you-weigh-in
I am VERY interested in this topic. Food is so very closely tied to a culture that it may almost be impossible to separate the two. It may be more important than geography or language. In the US, we have different kinds of cultures that have come together and have brought their foods with them. Hearkening back to the mantra - if it tastes good, eat it - we have adopted and/or modified these culture's foods to satisfy our own palate, with amazing results.
In a way, this happens all the time - historically, nearby cultures have shared ideas and have expanded on local themes as a result of commerce and cultural exchange. There was no corn or potatoes in Europe before the Columbian Exchange, for example. No tomato-based marinara sauce. No vanilla ice cream or chocolate bars. I don't think anyone would say that this exchange has been anything but productive - for everyone.
(Man. Now I want some chocolate drizzled over some vanilla ice cream.) ;)
Or has it?
This is part of a large-scale globalization of culture. And while we still call food by their cultures of origin (Thai or Italian or Ethiopian) we often modify it to our own palates and desires, even if it only has a slight hint of what it originally was intended to be.
Case in point: Chicken Tikka Masala. Ever had it? It's delightful with some Basmati rice and naan... Mmmm... According to Epicurious - If there's one dish guaranteed to be on every Indian restaurant menu, it's chicken tikka masala, which is composed of grilled chunks of chicken enveloped in a creamy spiced tomato sauce. What's behind this simple dish's tremendous popularity? "Tomato sauce has universal appeal. When the dish is eaten with naan bread, it's like an Indian version of pizza!" exclaims cookbook author and cooking teacher Julie Sahni, one of the most respected authorities on Indian cooking.
But. It's not Indian.
It's Robin Cook's British National Dish. It's from London. Or perhaps Glasgow. But it is almost certainly NOT from India, even if its origins are from Indian cuisine.
And. So. What?
So what?
Does that make me like it less? Does it cheapen the experience?
Actually, I say no.
Another food type that has evolved recently is this Korean-Mexican fusion. I've written about this before and how I think it's an awesome idea - one I've been experimenting with in my own home for years. I'm also a little bemused with the "cup-bop" (also here)thing - not a fusion, per se, but definitely a clash of the cultures...
I think this kind of thing opens more doors than it closes. It encourages people to try things that may not be 100% authentic or "pure" or whatever, but strive to appeal to a wider audience. Plus, it's just good...
And if it's good, eat it.
Comments