Cerebral Assassin
Member
Mik2121 said:
So Gaf is wrong, big surprise, as for the Tortilla isn't the "American" what the SA's call a tortilla
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Do Indian people eat anything other than Curry?
- Thread starter sprsk
- Start date
- Status
So Gaf is wrong, big surprise, as for the Tortilla isn't the "American" what the SA's call a tortilla
I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
This is what we are calling curry:AVclub said:I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
The 'soup' or sauce itself.
AVclub said:I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
This is what I am referring to.
AVclub said:I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
The very broad definition of curry is basically a gravy based dish flavoured with spices of varying heats.
Question is, does that definition conflict with other forms of food/cuisines/dishes?
It's a broad term, but at the same time, it's an adequate classification term for a broad group of dishes.
somuchwater
Member
What people call curry or curry powder usually consists of turmeric, coriander, cumin, some cayenne, and often a bit of cinnamon and clove. There is no spice called curry - it's just the name given to the standard collection of spices used in north Indian cooking.
Patrick Bateman
Member
Monkeybrain on ice.
Okay so are the following curries?Mik2121 said:
These are chicken soup and spaghetti, btw. What I'm asking is what the criteria for calling something "a curry" is. When you look at it, how do you know? The OP asked if people in India eat anything but "curry" and someone a couple of posts later asked "How do you define it?" I'm still waiting to see the answer to that question.
...AVclub said:
What?. Are you talking to me like I'm an idiot or you are seriously not understanding what I'm talking about?
No. They are not curries. I already said you what curries are. I bet you can relate the picture to the dish real name in India. That's what people call curry, not me (well, I do call it curry too because when I go to an Indian restaurant, that's what I need to call it in order to make the order).
Oh, and thanks for telling me those are chicken soup and spaghetti. I would have believed they were curry!...
(the fuck?)
somuchwater
Member
Zaptruder said:
I guess I don't understand why you want to create a generic term in the first place or, conversely, why you wouldn't include pasta dishes or Irish Stew or anything else. Why group 'Asian' dishes when, say, one dish from South India and one from Northern China have little, if anything in common.
Zap, I got a question for you.
You say that curry is overrated; especially when compared to Southeast Asian cuisine.
By whom exactly?
I live in the US and most people I know don't eat curry or haven't even tried it. Shit, it's like pulling teeth trying to convince my friends to eat at an Indian restaurant. But if I mention Thai, Vietnamese, etc, they are all for it. And trust me, it's not because the Indian restaurants here are no good.
So who exactly is overrating Indian food?
You say that curry is overrated; especially when compared to Southeast Asian cuisine.
By whom exactly?
I live in the US and most people I know don't eat curry or haven't even tried it. Shit, it's like pulling teeth trying to convince my friends to eat at an Indian restaurant. But if I mention Thai, Vietnamese, etc, they are all for it. And trust me, it's not because the Indian restaurants here are no good.
So who exactly is overrating Indian food?
somuchwater said:
As far as I know, they are not called just curry, but 'Thailand green sweet curry', 'Indian chicken curry', etc..
I guess it might not be fair, but then again, probably the original native names for those dishes would be damn hard to remember
idahoblue said:
I see. I guess I needed to say "that Indian 'soup' or sauce itself." But then again, I would be ignoring the stuff from Thailand, the British and Japanese versions of curry, the Chinese version, etc..
Aw.. fuck it. We all know what we are talking about, and this curry is goddamn tasty, no matter what kind of curry it is
(I know I know), let's stop this discussion.somuchwater said:
Does Irish Stew contain spices of varying levels of heat? Is it of a gravy* like consistency?
*to be fair, that's a pretty huge range of consistency. But if a curry is quite liquid, it's generally not derived from water, but something like coconut milk.
Do pasta dishes by definition include spices of varying levels of heat, with a gravy like consistency?
Does Japanese curry include spices of varying heat with a gravy like consistency? Yes.
Does German Currywurst include spices of varying heat with a gravy like consistency? Yes.
Does a large majority of indian food consist of spices of varying heat with a gravy like consistency? yes.
Well fuck. Looks like those foods that are commonly called curries have a little more in common with each other than other classes of foods such as pastries, pastas, et al.
VelvetMouth
Member
AVclub said:I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
In the US, Asia, Europe, Africa, curry is basically a stewed dish made with one or several of the spices mix you posted. You get meat curries and vegetarian curries.
Curries are named after the spices used, there's Vindaloo which is very hot, Lamb Rogan Josh is popular. Sweet Curry is used a lot of times in a coconut milk base curry like Prawn Curry.
English friends of mine do refer to going out for Indian food as getting a curry even if they don't get curry. It is clear to non Indian's that not all Indian food is curry though.
VelvetMouth
Member
Zaptruder said:
In the UK that might be true, here in the US SEA food in my experience trumps Indian food. I live in a small city in the US and we have 1 Indian restaurant and I don't know how many different places that are just SEA or Asian bistros that serve a variety of Asian food.
somuchwater
Member
Zaptruder said:
Well, yeah - Irish Stew is a gravy-ish dish (ha!) that has varying levels of heat. My point - and I can't believe this is how I'm spending my Sunday morning - is that your definition makes the grouping, not the other way round. You've already decided that this thing called 'Asian' exists and you're rolling with it. I disagree.
And does "a large majority" of Indian food have gravy with spices? No. Most of it is dry vegetable dishes and legumes and beans, some of which you would call curry and others which you would call soup.
I get what you're saying though dude. These definitions of things that homogenize and generalize just frustrate me.
VelvetMouth said:
And that's the way it should be!
Pepper doesn't count as a spice or as 'heat'. It's a basic seasoning
(otherwise I see no indication of Irish Stew having spices of varying levels of heat).Anyway... I have no idea why there needs to be an argument over this. It's like fretting over people calling the collective group of people on the India Sub-continent, 'Indians', even if they're technically Indians, sri lankans, bangladeshi, etc, etc, etc.
Just roll with it! Stop been so damn obtuse, and use a bit of sense to ascertain the context.
idahoblue said:
And you missed the point; OP is asking, do Indian people eat any other foods than the spicy gravy based dishes that they're famed for?
To add some to the context; the eating patterns of Indian people differ from westerners. Westerners typically eat a single primary dish in a meal. Indians tend to eat from communal dishes, thus include a larger variety of dishes each time; with curries typically featured as side dishes. The likelihood and frequency of them eating a meal without a curry as a side dish somewhere... well from the impressions someone like Sprsk gets (i.e. a white dude living in japan), they don't!
In that sense, it's a legitimate question of interest; do Indians ever have meals without curries? Or is it good for breakfast, lunch, dinner?
JimtotheHum
Member
Back at the workout center at my old apartment complex, we had alot of Indian people come in to workout. Alot of them were really nice, but when they were in there, the place just reeked of curry- I vowed never to try the food because, in my mind, I equate it with bad B O-
What other food seems to emanate from your pores when you eat it regularly?! there were times when that place was unbearable!! You could barely breathe..
What other food seems to emanate from your pores when you eat it regularly?! there were times when that place was unbearable!! You could barely breathe..
Holy fuck, could you take yourself any more seriously? And I got the the intent of Sprsks question. But you have said yourself that a non indian (Sprsk) did not know whether they ate anything other than curry (of any definition). The poster I was replying to said non Indians knew not everything was curry. Sprsk and other posters in this thread did not know that. Hence my tongue in cheek reply.Zaptruder said:
Zaptruder said:
No, thats not what I was asking.
And actually, I had no idea when people think of curry they only think of the gravy. Even on the show, the food they showed had great variety, it's just all of it used the curry spices.
Also, there was a segment where they had people eat Japanese curry on the street and they gave them spoons to eat with, and a lot of the people wouldn't let the spoon touch their mouth. Is there some reason for that? I know people in India eat mostly with their hands. Is there some sort of connection?
I guess you are talking about me, and I keep saying 'here in Japan' to make it clear it's not something only from the western. I thought it was actually 'important' to point it out as I was answering to comments talking about 'white people' and whatnot. Do you think I consider myself awesome because I live in another country? Because then you would be so damn wrong..kpop100 said:
'Curry' seems to be used as a synonym for 'anything with gravy' soo if that's your definition then yeah I suppose a lot of the foods are 'curries'. They're made to be eaten with either rice or rotis so it's very functional. Definition is just too vaguely broad.
But take a look at dosas or tandoori stuff and heck a million and one lentil dishes which really have nothing to do with other dishes.
Edit: Also different parts of India have very different foods. It's a billion plus people and a ton of different cultures guys!
Edit2: I'm not sure what 'curry spices' mean either. It's just the standard flavours used generally in the region, like mint and garlic or somesuch.
But take a look at dosas or tandoori stuff and heck a million and one lentil dishes which really have nothing to do with other dishes.
Edit: Also different parts of India have very different foods. It's a billion plus people and a ton of different cultures guys!
Edit2: I'm not sure what 'curry spices' mean either. It's just the standard flavours used generally in the region, like mint and garlic or somesuch.
somuchwater
Member
Zaptruder said:And that's the way it should be!
Pepper doesn't count as a spice or as 'heat'. It's a basic seasoning
Anyway... I have no idea why there needs to be an argument over this. It's like fretting over people calling the collective group of people on the India Sub-continent, 'Indians', even if they're technically Indians, sri lankans, bangladeshi, etc, etc, etc.
Just roll with it! Stop been so damn obtuse, and use a bit of sense to ascertain the context.
Good argument! Language means nothing! Definitions are unimportant!
Thanks for your contribution. Read your Saussure and then your Foucault and then get back to me.
somuchwater said:
Definitions, words, et al are only as important as the context they're formed in.
Why rile against the broad definition of curries? While curries might have more specific classifications to you, it's easy enough to understand (if you live in a western country), that in that context, curries refer to the class of dishes I mentioned, and is sometimes conflated with a group of spices regularly referred to as curry spices.
In western context, curries are as broad a range of food as pastas; and yet they both serve as appropriate identifiers for the range of foods they comprise. One is a gravy based dish flavoured with spices, of varying levels of heat, the other definition is for a broad class of food products made from water, flour, eggs, accompanied by sauces or seasonings.
While you could conflate (and bicker) on the basis of that definition for pastas to also be pizzas, or certain types of breads, just like you can with stews and curries, there is a pretty obvious and intuitive difference between them.
sprsk said:
Fair enough. I think most people would just referred to those (other non gravy) items as curry flavoured, rather than curries.
somuchwater
Member
Zaptruder said:
Right - what I'm objecting to is precisely the use of specific words in a specific context: specifically, the deployment of overly generic terms that themselves work to produce an overly homogeneous vision of 'Asia' in the west. You seem to use 'in the Western context' as a defense. I'm saying, no you're wrong - you don't get to define 'the Western context' for me, thanks. I'm saying the 'broad classification' that you say is acceptable is not.
All I'm saying is respect the specificities of difference. It's about more than your own classificatory convenience - it's about the kind of contexts that language produces and perpetuates.
AVclub said:I'm confused. When people say "curry" in this thread, are they referring to stuff made with:
Because from what I understand this is a spice. The American equivolent of this thread would be, "Do Americans eat anything but salts?"
If the definition of "curry" is not "stuff made with this type of spice" then someone please share what it is exactly because I would really like to know.
That is the definition that the majority of Americans use for curry, and most would not consider something like 'Japanese curry' to be a real curry, but rather some sort of stew or gravy dish. More specifically, the common usage of 'curry' is a thick sauce made from those spices, often with some sort of chopped meat or vegetables. We refer to the spice as a 'curry powder' and the sauce as 'curry'.
somuchwater said:
hang on - you're harping on about the importance of language, yet you aren't allowing different languages to adapt imported concepts in the way of their choosing? You can't expect a language external to a specific area to be able to handle the subtleties of variation on a theme such as 'curry'. So it goes in box 'a' and is generically labelled.
That doesn't belittle the original language, nor the original subject. Its merely reflecting that language adapts things to its own need.
Stop being so prissy about it
somuchwater
Member
mrklaw said:
You're acting as if 'importing concepts in the way of their choosing' is somehow ideologically neutral. It isn't.
Do I need to stop being so OCD about this, though? Probably.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked