> 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
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?
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.
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).
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!
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.
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!
Funny how it worked and people try to recreate that flavor when they don't have leftover tandoori chicken.
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.
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.
Which is why I hold the position that I do.
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.
"Founded" snobbery is snobbery nevertheless.
> Which is why I hold the position that I do.
You... supervise other, more junior snobs?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> It's often cultural guilt
Cultural guilt over what precisely?
> The most non-Indian person
What precisely makes a person more or less Indian?
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC54SLBnD5k5U3Q6N__UjbAw
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.
1) yeap, confirmed that's it
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.
Sambar looks good though
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).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_cuisine
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.
Your body actually maintains a reserve of amino acid and they do not need to be eaten in the same meal to be combined.
article by a registered dietician: https://www.theveganrd.com/vegan-nutrition-101/vegan-nutriti...
meta analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VYIETAn9p2JdDompJkMUVO1_PSZ...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?)
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.