Submitted by jamescookenotthatone t3_110deg1 in todayilearned
Reply to comment by Fetlocks_Glistening in TIL Eating every course seperately is Service à la russe. Before this meals were service à la française where all courses were served at once. Ambassador Alexander Kurakin introduced Service à la russe to France in 1810 and it became the norm by the 1880s. by jamescookenotthatone
Yes, but English cuisine was not widely admired or emulated. Lots of mutton in vinegar sauce or pease porridge.
>English cuisine was not widely admired or emulated
According to every British comedian it remains that way today.
There's a reason the national dish of the UK is curry.
I once had a British woman get very upset with me when I informed her that curry and kebabs are not “British Cuisine”. She strongly disagreed.
That’s awesome. They’ve adopted something so thoroughly that it’s become their national dish.
Also many of the curries they eat were indeed invented in Britain (by Indian migrants). Butter chicken is British in the same way orange chicken is form California not China
I disagree too. Food culture travels and evolves. We have been eating curries in the UK since the 18th century - at what point do we get to call it our own?
It's as silly as telling an American that he can't consider pizza a national food because it comes from Italy.
I never said it wasn’t or couldn’t be a “national food”. I said it isn’t British Cuisine. Indian cuisine thriving in Britain doesn’t make it British cuisine.
There isn’t an American alive who calls Chinese food American, or Pizza American. They’ll call it’s Italian American cuisine at most.
Beef Wellington is British cuisine. I don’t claim it’s Canadian just because I can get it at the pub down the road.
Serious imperialist attitude on you. I can see you’ve kept that from the 18th century along with the curry.
Embracing and celebrating influences from various world cultures is a 'serious imperialist attitude'? I suppose we're not allowed to consider tea part of UK culture either since we got it from trading too. Maybe we should also force India to rework most of its country's recipes to remove all the chillis and tomatoes they got from the Americas.
In fact, let's just force every country to only use ingredients and techniques from their own borders, and see what a marvelous world foodscape we have then.
You are so dumb. If you go to an Indian restaurant in the UK, it’s still an Indian restaurant. It’s not a British restaurant.
It’s an Indian restaurant in Britain. No one’s advocating for banning curries in the UK.
Victim mentality is strong too you big baby.
Personal insults and an apparent inability to comprehend what I wrote. Bye.
According to anyone who ever ate a meal in the UK it remains that way today.
The quality of their cusine and the beauty of their women are why Brittania ruled the sea.
And monkey's brains, though popular in Cantonese cuisine, are not often to be found in Washington D.C.
…is that what we ate? 🤢
What do you mean? Most of what the west currently calls Indian stems from victorian era England.
Most of what you can find in Indian restaurants in "the west" are fairly generic north Indian dishes like butter chicken, saag paneer etc.
Which were all created in Britain. Butter chicken isn't a dish that actually exists in India.
You're maybe thinking of tandoori masala (now actually not so uncommon in India). Saag paneer, tandoori chicken, and butter chicken absolutely do exist in India and have for some time.
I think it's fair to say many dishes we think of as traditional Indian cuisine are tied to colonialism in general due to use of non native ingrédients such as chili peppers or tomato, sure, but not that it all originates from the UK.
Hey mate I'm an Anglo chef that once thought that, too.
At this point we basically just need to dip our hats to India and add a pint of cream or tomatoes to whatever they thought of first.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments