• Radicalized@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      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?

      Is it just because India is the topic?

      • Radicalized@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.