Hacker News Reader

Comment by frandroid | Hacker News Reader

> is really a foreign dish, prepared using refined flour, which came across the Himalayas from central Asia in the twelfth century, along with Muslim settlers.

It would be nice of Indians to stop considering the bread of settlers who came 9 centuries ago as _foreign_...

Edit: The writer seems to be American, but it's an attitude that's pervasive of the Hindu Right anyway...

View on HN

At least speaking for myself, I can't complain; an invader or conqueror can still feel foreign after centuries have passed. If the Irish can throw off the Saxon yoke after "Eight Hundred Years of Oppression" (roughly 1250-1950), I think the Indians can do the same. (EDIT: Not with the literal Saxon yoke, although they did have occasion to free themselves of England...) Islam in the Subcontinent is at least as much an invasive, alien presence as England in Celtic Britain (or England in all of Britain, when you consider Anglo-Saxon origins), or Germans in the Slavic world -- or the US in the US, for that matter.

EDIT: But there are entries here about "Indian breads" that originate at the Mughal court, derived from Afghan or other Islamic traditions. Those aren't Indian breads if naan isn't!

They're Indian in the same sense that New York City pizza is American and not Italian --- it would be silly to call NYC pizza "Italian", as it's an indigenous American dish that is merely inspired by an Italian predecessor.

A good acid test is, did Indian culinary culture substantially alter the dish? In the case of naan, no, it probably didn't. In other cases, more so.

> "it would be silly to call NYC pizza "Italian", as it's an indigenous American dish that is merely inspired by an Italian predecessor"

What makes NYC pizza its own food type? There might be some minor differences like the type of dough commonly used, but I remember NYC pizza being fairly conventional (larger than average slices, not much else to distinguish it).

If NYC pizza is American, you could use the same logic to state that curry was British. There are regional variations of curry that were popularised in Britain. However, it doesn't seem right to claim them as solely British, considering most of the culinary innovation that led up to these dishes happened elsewhere.

Some British curry dishes --- tikka masala, for instance --- really are distinctively British.

Tikka masala was one of the dishes I had in mind. However, it still doesn't seem right to call it British. The culinary heritage of the dish is Bangladeshi (I believe the people who invented it were from Bangladesh, feel free to correct me), they just built on that heritage with a dish for the clientele they had at the time.

Similar questions can be raised about the kebab, whether its Turkish and/or German. Is the nationality of the originating chefs more or less important than the nationality of the audience they're trying to please?

It's so British that it's been called the National Dish of England! The key issue is that the dish was developed in England, for an audience of English diners.

>"It's so British that it's been called the National Dish of England!"

Come on man, that's just a marketing thing, it doesn't have any genuine cultural significance.

>"The key issue is that the dish was developed in England, for an audience of English diners."

You're ignoring my questions. Does the origin of the chefs hold no weight in your mind?

Furthermore, I'm British, and I've had plenty of curries in my time. Tikka Masala does not stick out amongst curries as something particularly different to the rest, and if there was something 'British' about it that difference should be noticeable.

It's the same thing with NYC pizza, there's basically nothing that sets it apart from pizza found elsewhere.

What makes NY pizza unique to NY? The grease, lack of good crust and soaked cardboard consistency mostly.

I'm from Chicago though so I'm probably not the best person to ask about NY pizza since we have different preferences there ;)

We make a fine pizza-flavored cassarole.

> but it's an attitude that's pervasive of the Hindu Right anyway

I haven't seen that attitude at all. Even the worst among Shiv Sainiks seem to consider vada pau their traditional dish. As for naan, the Indians I know consider it Punjabi, and traditionally made in a tandoor oven. Looking at it from another point of view, potato, tomato and chili are now considered inseparable from Indian cuisine. And yet, naan apparently came to India long before these vegetables did.

I think they mean "foreign" in the sense that a food writer would, for instance, refer to pasta as foreign to French food, and roux-thickened mother sauces foreign to Italian food. I don't think it's a political distinction.

The issue is that naan is basically one of the defining staples of Central Asian food, so it's weird to refer to it as an Indian bread.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com