Butter chicken was invented for the British (in India), but naan bread and the various dal dishes are authentic, and those are the first things I think of. Thai food is good too, but it’s different.
Gee, how far back does it have to go to be authentic? Tomatoes weren’t in Italy until after Columbus brought them (of course after 1300), and didn’t catch on until well after the later date mentioned of 1700, so there goes all of Italy’s most famous dishes.
Hamburgers are American food. Not Native American food, but American. Next you’re going to tell me baguettes are Middle Eastern food because grain was domesticated there, or that camel meat is Native American food because they evolved in America before crossing the land bridge in pre-human times.
The only reason naan is in India, is one of the many people who conquered that area brought it there.
You can say it’s popular there, but it’s still not Indian food. Just a dish that’s popular in India.
And I have zero idea what the tomatoes rant was about…
Italians got a new ingredient and incorporated it into existing dishes or made completely new ones. It’s not like someone shiped spaghetti sauce to Italy and Italians just decided they should claim they invented it like you’re doing with naan.
Or that someone from another country moved there and showed everyone how to make it like Butter Chicken.
Yeah, tandoori naan is apparently popular across neighboring countries too. I’d say India can still claim some co-ownership, just like Europeans and their various loaf breads, but I guess that’s a matter of definition, so sure, it’s not exclusively Indian.
The dal dishes are Indian, though. Curries in general are Indian - that one goes all the way back to Harrapa IIRC. Since you seem intent on keeping score, that’s 2 to 1.
It makes a difference for some stuff, but not naan.
Curries in general are Indian
Yes… Which is what I was talking about Thai doing it better…
Why are you talking about scores?
Is you just now understanding my first comment a point for me or you?
Honestly, if we’re keeping score I think we should both get a point for that. I legitimately had given up on trying and wasn’t going to reply again, but then I saw you got it!
Naan as known today originates from Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt.
The word Naan originates from Iran.
Anyway you might as well try to make the case that any Indian dish that contains tomatoes, potatoes, chillies, squash, and much else isn’t really Indian because they didn’t exist there until a few hundred years ago.
I think after a cuisine or manner of cooking has been used in a region for almost a thousand years we are free to say it is authentic to that region, even though it was introduced. That you would deny Indians that, while accepting that Thai cuisine only started using chilli peppers in the last 300 years, opens a broader discussion about your personal understanding of culture and ethnicity.
Further, a Big Mac is a product made by a single corporation, lmao. I’m not going to justify that with further argument. But to use your Naitive American angle; a big part of NA cuisine is a bread called ‘bannock’. It can be savoury or sweet, and every tribe cooks it a little different from every other tribe. It is an important part of Indegenous cooking… and it’s an introduced food. The word bannock isn’t even from any native word. It came about from Scottish settlers/workers surviving on meagre company rations of flour and oil in isolated regions where they had no idea how to get food from the land. First Nations were introduced to it then found themselves in a similar situation as they were pushed off their land and given flour rations by the government so they wouldn’t all die. This all happened so recently my grandparents knew people affected by this.
It’s integral to their culture, even, and anyone who would deny bannock isn’t naitive would rightly be called an idiot by any indigenous person I know. Even though it’s an introduced food. That’s how culture, and food, work.
That you would deny Indians that, while accepting that Thai cuisine only started using chilli peppers in the last 300 years, opens a broader discussion about your personal understanding of culture and ethnicity.
Not really…
Because one is an ingredient, and one is a a cooked item that someone mentioned as a food that was invented in India.
Those seem like two very different types of things.
But I don’t know why you want for chili peppers instead of just curry.
Curry was invented in India, but me and most people I know think Thai curry is better. Which is literally what I said in the beginning…
What is even going on in this thread?
Why do so many people that know nothing about this care so much?
No one made mention of anything being ‘invented’ anywhere until you, just now. I think I’d like to quote from one of history’s true greatest food scholars when I say, “What is even going on in this thread?”
No one made mention of anything being ‘invented’ anywhere until you
That’s what it is…
When OP said “Indian food” you took it as any food that’s sold in India, regardless of where it originated
So like, if there’s a taco bell, then tacos are Indian.
If there’s spaghetti, then spaghetti is Indian.
I’d think that would also mean all those people “worldwide” aren’t eating Indian food either then. They’re eating the food of whatever country theyre in. Do you think Uber Eats has spaceships? Is that what ufos really are?
I’m outta here.
Good night, thanks for sticking around long enough I could start to understand what you were talking about. That shit was a trip.
Butter chicken was invented for the British (in India), but naan bread and the various dal dishes are authentic, and those are the first things I think of. Thai food is good too, but it’s different.
Yeah…
But that was invented by people from Pakistan who were just living in India…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_chicken
So its still a stretch to call it Indian food.
And naan is from Iran…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naan
Muslims brought it to India when they conquered it.
It’s like saying a Big Mac is authentic Native American food
Gee, how far back does it have to go to be authentic? Tomatoes weren’t in Italy until after Columbus brought them (of course after 1300), and didn’t catch on until well after the later date mentioned of 1700, so there goes all of Italy’s most famous dishes.
Hamburgers are American food. Not Native American food, but American. Next you’re going to tell me baguettes are Middle Eastern food because grain was domesticated there, or that camel meat is Native American food because they evolved in America before crossing the land bridge in pre-human times.
Mate, naan wasn’t invented in India…
It just wasn’t.
It’s Iranian food.
The only reason naan is in India, is one of the many people who conquered that area brought it there.
You can say it’s popular there, but it’s still not Indian food. Just a dish that’s popular in India.
And I have zero idea what the tomatoes rant was about…
Italians got a new ingredient and incorporated it into existing dishes or made completely new ones. It’s not like someone shiped spaghetti sauce to Italy and Italians just decided they should claim they invented it like you’re doing with naan.
Or that someone from another country moved there and showed everyone how to make it like Butter Chicken.
They’re just not comparable examples…
Yeah, tandoori naan is apparently popular across neighboring countries too. I’d say India can still claim some co-ownership, just like Europeans and their various loaf breads, but I guess that’s a matter of definition, so sure, it’s not exclusively Indian.
The dal dishes are Indian, though. Curries in general are Indian - that one goes all the way back to Harrapa IIRC. Since you seem intent on keeping score, that’s 2 to 1.
A tandor is just a type of oven champ…
It makes a difference for some stuff, but not naan.
Yes… Which is what I was talking about Thai doing it better…
Why are you talking about scores?
Is you just now understanding my first comment a point for me or you?
Honestly, if we’re keeping score I think we should both get a point for that. I legitimately had given up on trying and wasn’t going to reply again, but then I saw you got it!
According to your source
The word Naan originates from Iran.
Anyway you might as well try to make the case that any Indian dish that contains tomatoes, potatoes, chillies, squash, and much else isn’t really Indian because they didn’t exist there until a few hundred years ago.
I think after a cuisine or manner of cooking has been used in a region for almost a thousand years we are free to say it is authentic to that region, even though it was introduced. That you would deny Indians that, while accepting that Thai cuisine only started using chilli peppers in the last 300 years, opens a broader discussion about your personal understanding of culture and ethnicity.
Further, a Big Mac is a product made by a single corporation, lmao. I’m not going to justify that with further argument. But to use your Naitive American angle; a big part of NA cuisine is a bread called ‘bannock’. It can be savoury or sweet, and every tribe cooks it a little different from every other tribe. It is an important part of Indegenous cooking… and it’s an introduced food. The word bannock isn’t even from any native word. It came about from Scottish settlers/workers surviving on meagre company rations of flour and oil in isolated regions where they had no idea how to get food from the land. First Nations were introduced to it then found themselves in a similar situation as they were pushed off their land and given flour rations by the government so they wouldn’t all die. This all happened so recently my grandparents knew people affected by this.
It’s integral to their culture, even, and anyone who would deny bannock isn’t naitive would rightly be called an idiot by any indigenous person I know. Even though it’s an introduced food. That’s how culture, and food, work.
Not really…
Because one is an ingredient, and one is a a cooked item that someone mentioned as a food that was invented in India.
Those seem like two very different types of things.
But I don’t know why you want for chili peppers instead of just curry.
Curry was invented in India, but me and most people I know think Thai curry is better. Which is literally what I said in the beginning…
What is even going on in this thread?
Why do so many people that know nothing about this care so much?
Is it just because India is the topic?
No one made mention of anything being ‘invented’ anywhere until you, just now. I think I’d like to quote from one of history’s true greatest food scholars when I say, “What is even going on in this thread?”
I’m outta here.
That’s what it is…
When OP said “Indian food” you took it as any food that’s sold in India, regardless of where it originated
So like, if there’s a taco bell, then tacos are Indian.
If there’s spaghetti, then spaghetti is Indian.
I’d think that would also mean all those people “worldwide” aren’t eating Indian food either then. They’re eating the food of whatever country theyre in. Do you think Uber Eats has spaceships? Is that what ufos really are?
Good night, thanks for sticking around long enough I could start to understand what you were talking about. That shit was a trip.
Pakistan was part of India until 1947. These guys ended up on the Pakistan side of the partition, and then returned to India as refugees.
I’m not sure that it’s fair to say that they weren’t Indian.