Chicken Tikka Masala appears to have credibly originated in the UK. It’s probably as British as Beef Stroganoff is Russian (okay, looking it up, it looks like the latter may be at least a bit of a myth, but it gets my point across).
As American as Mac and Cheese is my go-to, since while there were pasta and cheese sauce dishes elsewhere, Thomas Jefferson got obsessed with Elbow Macaroni specifically, and had the extrusion machines shipped to his property in the US while he was an ambassador in Italy.
He then created a simpler version of oven baked Mac and Cheese, and insisted on serving it at every formal dinner at Monticello, while he was president.
I’m not disagreeing there. But were those British chefs who came up with it? And not chefs they brought back from places which Brits had conquered? Obviously no.
And, needless to say, tikka masala is about as far from modern English cuisine as you can get.
Well, they were British chefs with South Asian heritage who of course were indirectly here because of horrific Imperialism
But it is British, its very British. Despite what Farage and co want you to believe, we’re a multi-cultural nation and have been for centuries.
British-Indian cuisine is at this point distinct and diverse enough from traditional Indian cuisine that it is its own thing. And its super widespread - even the racists discuss how shitty they are over a curry
You know, this got my mind working for a bit. We have a similar phenomenon in the United States, where just about every ethnic cuisine is kind of a bastardized version of the more authentic dishes brought here by people emigrating from their home countries. American Chinese, Tex Mex, etc are all distinctly American but have clearly been inspired by their origin but modified for western tastes and sensibilities. It makes me wonder at what point a certain cuisine is considered to be a genuine and unique creation, rather than just something adopted from elsewhere by way of either conquest or cultural exchange? How many things do we associate with a particular nationality as being their specialty when that style of cooking or method of preparation or presentation were probably acquired along the way somewhere and forgotten with time? I guess it’s hard to know for sure.
If I wanted to be rigid about it I would say it can be considered as part of the region if you can locally source the ingredients. Anything ingredient you have to import should invalidate the fish but my actual opinion is, who cares. If it’s good it’s good.
Thomas Jefferson gave us Mac and Cheese. That’s 100% American food inspired by other pasta and cheese dishes, but Jefferson just got obsessed with Elbow Macaroni for some reason.
I’m pretty sure the only reason Apple Pie is associated with the US is because Johnny Appleseed was a drunk that wanted lots of cider.
But, more to my point: let’s say I walk into an English pub, and ask what they’ve got on the menu. How many times do you think they’ll tell me about the unseasoned fried fish, or the unseasoned fried potatoes, before they mention “oh and we’ve got chicken tikka masala”
I take issue with the word “immigrant” as it implies compliance, but okay.
No, that was not my intent, but I see your point. I think this is really all I meant to say:
Most former colonies of Britain can feel the influence of its culture a lot more than Britain feels the influence of any of its colonies’ cultures.
So when Britain says “we totally invented how to put butter and spices in a tomatoe base and add some chicken”. And tries to claim one of the last few things they haven’t from this subcontinent? I get kinda angry.
Who is this mythical ‘Britain’ that is saying this? Is it the King? Is it Farage? Or is it the 8% of our population with South Asian heritage? We’re a multi-cultural nation. The colonial and imperial roots of that absolutely can’t be ignored, but they don’t erase the stake that BAME people have in this country.
Some British people originally came from the sub-continent; get over it
It was invented by a British person in Scotland and is beloved throughout the UK. Why wouldn’t it be the national dish of Britain? The man who invented it, Ali Ahmed Aslam, was born in Pakistan, but had lived in Scotland since he was a small child, meaning he grew up steeped in British culture.
I don’t think a cuisine has to be based on cooking that originates in a different country to be a country’s national dish. He decided to improvise a sauce that was not especially South Asian considering it contained a New World fruit in his restaurant in Glasgow and that inspiration became the favorite food of millions in Britain.
Chicken Tikka Masala appears to have credibly originated in the UK. It’s probably as British as Beef Stroganoff is Russian (okay, looking it up, it looks like the latter may be at least a bit of a myth, but it gets my point across).
As American as Mac and Cheese is my go-to, since while there were pasta and cheese sauce dishes elsewhere, Thomas Jefferson got obsessed with Elbow Macaroni specifically, and had the extrusion machines shipped to his property in the US while he was an ambassador in Italy.
He then created a simpler version of oven baked Mac and Cheese, and insisted on serving it at every formal dinner at Monticello, while he was president.
I’m not disagreeing there. But were those British chefs who came up with it? And not chefs they brought back from places which Brits had conquered? Obviously no.
And, needless to say, tikka masala is about as far from modern English cuisine as you can get.
Well, they were British chefs with South Asian heritage who of course were indirectly here because of horrific Imperialism
But it is British, its very British. Despite what Farage and co want you to believe, we’re a multi-cultural nation and have been for centuries.
British-Indian cuisine is at this point distinct and diverse enough from traditional Indian cuisine that it is its own thing. And its super widespread - even the racists discuss how shitty they are over a curry
You know, this got my mind working for a bit. We have a similar phenomenon in the United States, where just about every ethnic cuisine is kind of a bastardized version of the more authentic dishes brought here by people emigrating from their home countries. American Chinese, Tex Mex, etc are all distinctly American but have clearly been inspired by their origin but modified for western tastes and sensibilities. It makes me wonder at what point a certain cuisine is considered to be a genuine and unique creation, rather than just something adopted from elsewhere by way of either conquest or cultural exchange? How many things do we associate with a particular nationality as being their specialty when that style of cooking or method of preparation or presentation were probably acquired along the way somewhere and forgotten with time? I guess it’s hard to know for sure.
That’s an interesting thought.
If I wanted to be rigid about it I would say it can be considered as part of the region if you can locally source the ingredients. Anything ingredient you have to import should invalidate the fish but my actual opinion is, who cares. If it’s good it’s good.
Thomas Jefferson gave us Mac and Cheese. That’s 100% American food inspired by other pasta and cheese dishes, but Jefferson just got obsessed with Elbow Macaroni for some reason.
I’m pretty sure the only reason Apple Pie is associated with the US is because Johnny Appleseed was a drunk that wanted lots of cider.
Another example.
Fish and chips is Portugese. Surprisingly, so is vindaloo
But, more to my point: let’s say I walk into an English pub, and ask what they’ve got on the menu. How many times do you think they’ll tell me about the unseasoned fried fish, or the unseasoned fried potatoes, before they mention “oh and we’ve got chicken tikka masala”
Not exactly a national dish, in my opinion.
How about 'spoons on a Thursday? Actually I think they have Curry on the menu all week now.
“British chefs with South Asian heritage” lmao. That’s one way of putting it.
Yes. I agree. It is VERY British.
Would you like to go more into the origin of the phrase “British-Indian”?
I’m not denying the fucked up colonial history. You seem to be denying that South Asian immigrants are British - they are
I take issue with the word “immigrant” as it implies compliance, but okay.
No, that was not my intent, but I see your point. I think this is really all I meant to say:
Most former colonies of Britain can feel the influence of its culture a lot more than Britain feels the influence of any of its colonies’ cultures.
So when Britain says “we totally invented how to put butter and spices in a tomatoe base and add some chicken”. And tries to claim one of the last few things they haven’t from this subcontinent? I get kinda angry.
Who is this mythical ‘Britain’ that is saying this? Is it the King? Is it Farage? Or is it the 8% of our population with South Asian heritage? We’re a multi-cultural nation. The colonial and imperial roots of that absolutely can’t be ignored, but they don’t erase the stake that BAME people have in this country.
Some British people originally came from the sub-continent; get over it
It still sounds ridiculous to make that dish the national dish of Britain.
Can you explain why that makes any sense?
It was invented by a British person in Scotland and is beloved throughout the UK. Why wouldn’t it be the national dish of Britain? The man who invented it, Ali Ahmed Aslam, was born in Pakistan, but had lived in Scotland since he was a small child, meaning he grew up steeped in British culture.
I don’t think a cuisine has to be based on cooking that originates in a different country to be a country’s national dish. He decided to improvise a sauce that was not especially South Asian considering it contained a New World fruit in his restaurant in Glasgow and that inspiration became the favorite food of millions in Britain.
Makes complete sense to me.
It was invented in the 1970s. It’s not exactly classic cuisine. It definitely counts as modern British.