Hacker News Reader

>According to Wikipedia [1] the dish chicken tikka masala is thought to have been invented by Bangladeshi chefs working in the UK in the 1960s. Doesn't that make it at least somewhat British?

First of all that is not a well-established origin story, but more like an urban legend. There are multiple conflicting versions of this same urban legend where multiple different restaurants claim to have invented the dish in the same way. And the restaurant chain (Moti Mahal) from one of these versions had been serving a virtually identical dish in their Delhi restaurant since the 1950s, ten years before any of these supposed origin stories. I will let you come to your own conclusions about what scope for authenticity that leaves for these stories.

>If I, as a Swedish person, move to the US and compose an awesome recipe for pizzaballs [2] where I combine Swedish meatballs with the American love for all things pizza [3] and it becomes a huge hit which is exported to the rest of the world, would that make the dish Swedish?

In your case at least you will be doing some "fusion" or "innovation" right? What exactly is the "fusion" or "innovation" in chicken tikka masala? Can anyone of sound mind actually claim that chicken tikka masala and butter chicken are two completely different dishes?

While we are making up examples on the spot, here is a more accurate one. If I start making pizzas in India and because mozzarella is hard to find here, just use processed cheese instead and may be put more chilis on top to suit Indian tastes, does the dish stop being pizza?

There has to be some reasonable limitation on how little you modify something before you get to call it a new "invention".

> If I start making pizzas in India and because mozzarella is hard to find here, just use processed cheese instead and may be put more chilis on top to suit Indian tastes, does the dish stop being pizza

No, but if you call that pizza something like Pizza Kalari would it then be wrong to say that Pizza Kalari is an Indian invention?

>No, but if you call that pizza something like Pizza Kalari would it then be wrong to say that Pizza Kalari is an Indian invention?

I already answered your question in the next line in my comment -- There has to be some reasonable limitation on how little you modify something before you get to call it a new "invention".

Besides, no Indian would feel the need to do that because, unlike the British, we are quite comfortable in our culinary identity. And most Indians would not respond well to such marketing. In fact, things like Pizza and Burger fill pretty much the exact opposite niche in India where eating very crappy versions of these western foods seems to have an aspirational value to it.

All good points, thanks.

I guess food history is murky and complicated, even for semi-modern things like this. :)

I don't know remotely enough about Indian food to measure the degree of innovation in tikka masala, I'm afraid.

Recipe for butter chicken: roasted pieces of tandoori chicken in a tomatoey butter based sauce.

Recipe for chicken tikka masala: roasted pieces of tandoori chicken in a tomatoey cream based sauce.

As is often the case with cultural appropriation, the real innovation by the appropriator was the marketing. In my view, this is what probably happened: multiple restaurants found the fake origin story a profitable and interesting marketing tool and judging by how popular indian food is in the UK today, it obviously worked.

I have the perfect example for discussion here. "Swedish meatballs, IKEA style", by an Indian Youtube cook, made out of chicken and with ginger, garlic and garam masala. By all means, they are meatballs, but Swedish, they are not.

https://youtu.be/Jlu9LP2k8pQ

I hope he answers how he felt. Additionally it would be interesting to know his nationality.

I felt offended by chicken tikka masala being called British. How many countries in the world do you think I could be from?

Yes, I am obviously Mexican.

Well, it was created by Bangladeshi people according to Wikipedia so I'll have to go with Bangladesh. If I hade not known this then my first guess would have been India, but I prefer not to guess so I ask instead.

Oh, it says so in the Wikipedia. It certainly must be true!

Although it this case, it is not even true that the Wikipedia actually says that. Did you even read the article or are you just here to troll? Did I accidentally wander into reddit by mistake?

[The Wikipedia recounts several different versions of the urban legend. Three different sources with three different versions one where the chef was Bangladeshi, one where the chef was Indian, and another where the chef was Pakistani.]

You are free to go through my comment history and draw your own conclusions.

So now it can be from Bangladesh, India or Pakistan. It doesn't really help your case that it's an Indian dish, perhaps we should call it a Southeast Asian dish instead?

>You are free to go through my comment history and draw your own conclusions.

I can also just draw my own conclusions from the interaction I am having with you right now.

>So now it can be from Bangladesh, India or Pakistan.

No, the urban legends noted in the Wikipedia say that it could be from those places.

Butter Chicken was actually invented in Delhi in a restaurant called Moti Mahal in the early 1950s by Punjabi migrants. CTM is too similar a dish to Butter Chicken to be called a new dish, let alone an "invention".

> I can also just draw my own conclusions from the interaction I am having with you right now.

It does explain your first emotion of being offended, you seem very easily offended.

> Butter Chicken was actually invented in Delhi in a restaurant called Moti Mahal in the early 1950s by Punjabi migrants. CTM is too similar a dish to Butter Chicken to be called a new dish, let alone an "invention".

Now Chicken Tikka Masala is the same dish as Butter Chicken. Alright then.

>Now Chicken Tikka Masala is the same dish as Butter Chicken. Alright then.

They are 99.9% similar. Can anybody of sound mind make the claim that they are completely different recipes?

You're moving the goal posts, it is not about being completely different recipes. It's about being different dishes. They are different dishes.

My argument has not changed from my first comment. These were the last two sentences from it:

>If I start making pizzas in India and because mozzarella is hard to find here, just use processed cheese instead and may be put more chilis on top to suit Indian tastes, does the dish stop being pizza?

>There has to be some reasonable limitation on how little you modify something before you get to call it a new "invention".

How have I moved the goal post?

In fact I never called CTM and Butter Chicken the same dish - I called them virtually identical and too similar etc, it was a strawman you created and you then proceeded to say that I was moving the goal post when I reiterated my original position.

Please try to keep the quality of discussion higher. If I wanted to have endless discussions with argumentative people who have no ability to read, I would go on reddit.

> Can anybody of sound mind make the claim that they are completely different recipes?

!=

> Can anybody of sound mind make the claim that they are different recipes?

You seem to have it backwards, those were your words. Not mine. A little ironic for someone claiming I can't read, but alright. It would be nice if you could keep your emotions in check though, both for your and my sake.

I of course agree that they are similar, that is pretty evident. But that doesn't matter to call it a different dish, e.g. an egg sunny side up is a different dish compared to a scrambled egg even though the ingredients are exactly the same and it's prepared in the same way too, with the only difference being that the egg is mixed/destroyed.

For the sake of argument we can pretend that the sunny side up was invented in India, now a Taiwanese dude comes along and decides to scramble it. Is the new dish an Indian dish? I would disagree with that.