mongo_jones

I think we all have to do a little historical homework. And the history of spices is really intertwined with a lot of important historical events. Salt and the use of it is ancient. I suspect it was reasonably widespread around the world - but it wasn't easy to get for the most part - and it wasn't cheap. Black pepper came from the "east". It too was hard to get - and not cheap. When Columbus went to the "New World" in 1492 - he was trying to find an easier way to get to the "east" - in part to get spices - including pepper. According to historical accounts - he was the first European to discover capsicum - chili pepper - which was native only in the "New World". And a lot of discoverers around that period of time were also driven in part by the desire to expand the "Spice Trade". Now maybe some chili peppers made their way to India (and other countries) before the end of the 15th century - but - if they did - I doubt there were many. They weren't on the shelves of the local supermarkets . And although food items from the New World did make their way to Europe over the next 300 years - I doubt they were - for the most part - anything other than exotic expensive items which were sometimes used by the "rich and famous" - sometimes not - depending on what was fashionable at the time (just think of what it was like to travel from Europe to the "New World" and back even in the 19th century). In fact - a lot of these products - like chocolate and tobacco and corn - have pretty interesting histories. So perhaps the cuisines that developed outside of the "New World" - which many people think of as "haute" these days - developed the way they did simply because New World products were hard to come by. Robyn robyn, vasco da gama landed on the konkan coast in 1498--i haven't examined his cargo manifest but i therefore used the 15th century as the earliest possible cutoff for the incorporation of chilli peppers into any indian cooking practices. this is not unsound historical procedure. my point was/is only that indian food doesn't get spicy in the capsicum way until relatively recently in indian history. mongo

this is probably a separate discussion but there's also the question of why we privilege (or at least use language that indicates we do) an experience of food that involves reflection, contemplation etc -- a sort of detached classicism--over an experience of food that hits you in the face (so to speak). both are valid but only one usually makes strong global claims for itself.

so, yes, you'd like to eat your foie gras without feeling too bad? the "there's always something worse" argument isn't a very strong one either. on the one extreme of such arguments are those who find the killing of animals for food (regardless of cruelty in raising/slaughter or not) to be abhorrent and they eschew meat. on the other extreme are people who acknowledge that animals are exploited but hey, they taste so good. these two sets of people rarely find common ground but what they do have in common is that they are both honest. in between are the rest of us on egullet. we are what are known as hypocrites. edited to fix grammar

why don't pro-foie gras people just come out and acknowledge that the process of creating foie gras may well be incredibly cruel but they'd like to be able to eat it anyway? just because one likes foie gras doesn't mean it has to be morally right, does it? or do we just want to be able to eat our super-fatted goose/duck liver with a clear conscience? the argument that people should go after battery chickens, boxed veal etc. instead is not a very far-sighted one. what would you say to someone who is against all those things?

the san gabriel valley restaurants are very specialized. so it really comes down to what you want to eat. the big cantonese seafood houses are good for that kind of thing but i'd suggest chungking or hua's garden for sichuan--both are perenially packed with overwhelmingly chinese clientele, for what that's worth.

adam, thanks for the very informative posts and for historicizing this conversation. it is a good idea to separate the "what gets or doesn't get to be haute" line of conversation (which is where my posts earlier in this thread were going) from that about the cultural history of one particular haute tradition. for the western european haute tradition then it would appear that while the category itself is fairly dynamic--spice/heat is not definitive of haute but an active strategic differentiating characteristic, deployed to distinguish it from the low, that moves up or down in different times--its latter day proponents' take on it is fairly static. this latter is not particularly surprising or specific to this discourse--the present always looks self-evident and inevitable. looking at it historically, though, in light of your posts it would appear that there is no reason why even western european haute cuisine might not take on a "hotter" avatar--especially as it comes more in contact with asian and other cuisines. "spice destroys taste", "heat masks ingredient quality" etc. emerge as unexamined, if persusasive, ideological, benevolently ethnocentric fluff. from the indian point of view--and again i'm not a big authority here--i'd suspect that the high-ness of high cuisine is determined more by labor intensity than by heat (of course capsicum doesn't even come to india till the 15th century so we're talking about relatively recent cuisine anyway). in other words, both high and low cuisines are likely equally variably spicy but certain kinds of preparations (not just ingredients) are/were not possible except in the homes of the wealthy. just a hypothesis. it would be interesting to read about how this gets sliced in different parts of the world. there's a book project in there if someone hasn't already got to it. regards, mongo edit to fix grammar

hirozen is great. for similar good quality, reasonably priced sushi there's also menori (robertson 1/4 block north of pico) and hide on sawtelle (1 1/2 blocks north of olympic). menori has a great lunch combo in particular.

no idea. i've never seen them as a separate spice and it isn't used as such in my family. but that means little. it is related to and tastes like ajwain so probably you could use it as you would ajwain. v.gautam would probably be your best bet for more specific information. but he hasn't been around for a while.

Careful: I know you must not have meant to equate low-end with crap. yes. though my crap does usually come out my low-end.

trillium, how much is she paying you? seriously, bengalis may not eat the spiciest food of all indians (that honour probably goes to andhra-ites with their weapons grade chilli powder) but tamils? also, not all bengali dishes are spicy--in fact probably a minority of them are but the bengalis i know can eat spicy food with the best of them. both my parents (1 ghoti, 1 bangal) eat raw whole green chillies (the little skinny spicy ones) with every meal. but yes, koreans eat way spicier food than bengalis, but there's no reason why my wife should hear this from me. we both had our tongues blown out of our mouths by the thai food in bangkok though. where are you from? regards, mongo

i have a crockpot i've never used. i'll be glad to hear of any indian recipes i might be able to make with it. lemme have it.

here's the link to the pictures jschyun mentioned--the jalebis are in there somewhere. http://home.comcast.net/~mongo_jones/indiafoodpics.html i don't know if i would call jalebis funnel cakes. they are completely impossible to describe though. you have to see one and eat one, and ideally see it being made, to get it.

ambala sweets and spices is good, of course, but if you don't want to go as far you could do worse than go to india sweet house on pico (between crescent heights and fairfax--opposite the savon). they have hands-down the best alu-parathas and saag-panir in town (the latter with nary a drop of cream and fresh, fresh panir--they also sell fresh panir). their sweets selection can also be very good, though it depends on how long ago things were made. their chola-bhaturas are also very good--make sure you add a spoonful each of tamarind sauce and mint sauce on the cholas and sprinkle some raw onions and green-chillis on top. their sev-puri is also excellent. but whatever you do don't order dosas there, or for that matter at ambala sweets. you might as well order pad thai at a chinese restaurant. if you're going to artesia and want a dosa go to udupi palace. if you want a dosa and you aren't going to artesia go to artesia. while at udupi palace also try their uttapams--especially the dangerous green chilli uttapam. in my opinion their vadas are much better than their idlis, which while also good are a little sour. ambala sweets and spices is good for north indian snack food and so forth and, depending on your luck, sweets. jai bharat--1/2 a block up pioneer from udupi palace--is good for some gujarati snacks, prime among them dhoklas. you don't get these easily even in india outside gujarat (unless you have gujju friends) so take full advantage. for other artesia options there's shan (a few doors down from udupi palace) for hit and miss hyderabadi food. when it hits it is pretty good, when it misses it is still a lot better than the cookie-cutter indian you get in l.a. try the haleem, the baghara baingan and the lamb biryani with the mirch ka salan. also, this sounds difficult to believe, but they do a really good lunch buffet. for more recognizable indian in artesia (albeit done much better) there's ashoka the great (opposite udupi palace). i haven't been to woodlands so can't say. in l.a itself there's also some interesting bangladeshi options. my favorite is alladin on vermont (between 1st and 3rd). it is a deli counter style place and only one guy speaks english. it isn't the cleanest looking place and can be hard for non bengali-speakers but if you point and smile you'll get pretty good stuff. they have classic bengali parathas here--worth a trip just for those. get them with their shami or seekh kababs. also excellent is their bengali style biryani, their chicken curry and if they have it their shorshe-ilish. these guys also sell all manner of raw bengali fish flown in frozen from bangladesh. they also have a bengali sweets counter, but it is iffy at best. on the whole, in my opinion, all these places (and also the vegetarian chandni in santa monica and culver city) are far superior food experiences to over-rated, over-priced places like all india cafe, electric lotus or bombay cafe. but that's my opinion and while it is unlikely there's a slight chance i'm wrong.

if i may go back to first principles: how is "haute" to be defined? is it a quality of the food itself or of elements in the overall dining experience--ambience, service, crockery, wine etc.? if the former, what elements are paramount?

For capsicum heat, I nominate "fiery" as the best word. so would you say that sichuan cuisine could never be haute?

is this place new hollywood? what exactly is their ludhiana chicken like anyway? never heard of such a dish-which doesn't mean much.

separate point, so i'm taking it up separately: what is also different in the english case is that since the 1960s immigration acts there the definition of "english" has qualitatively changed. thus indian/pakistani food in england is not a case of a foreign cuisine achieving dominance at the expense of a local (whatever we might think of it) but of a new local emerging. small point maybe, but worth making.

i don't know if this question is directed at my previous post but if so i should clarify that i am saying that heat does not map onto class within or across regional cuisines in india.

just curious: where does taking out patents on traditional knowledge fall in this continuum?

it is certainly not true in india. in each regional cuisine dishes that are meant to be spicy are, those that aren't aren't. some cuisines have a preponderance of spicy food, some have very little. it doesn't get sliced by class. can get sliced by religion though--jains, for example, are proscribed onion and garlic.

jschyun is going to be your best bet for korean (she knows way more about koreatown than i do)--you could also browse that jonathon gold article about koreatown that someone recently posted a link to. places like chosun galbi and dong il jiang don't just have bbq on their menu, by the way. my own koreatown comfort-food haunts (or rather my wife's) are places like hodori (vermont/olympic) and bcd tofu house (plus a bunch of specialty soup and casserole places). koreatown restaurants are really quite specialized. but i repeat, nowhere in the u.s is there such a trove of excellent korean food as there is in l.a. i do think it would be a shame to pick japanese or indian in l.a over it. jschuyn, help me out here. but every place i named earlier (korean and otherwise) is casual and (with the exception of chosun) inexpensive. i would really recommend chungking in monterey park for sichuan (206 s. garfield--a block or so south of garvey). get their ma-po tofu, the prickly-ash sprinkled spare ribs, the hot sauced beef wontons and, if they have it, their heavenly whole pumpkin stuffed with spiced ground pork special. except the kitchen staff the place is entirely staffed by women, only one of whom speaks english-- but you'll do fine. if you do go, a tip: you can buy beer at the liquor store next door and carry it in with you.

so, you're saying a sophisticated diner is one who has eaten a whole range of different things, not just her own local cuisine? so sophisticated=cosmopolitan? where cosmopolitan=access to more than just your own. well, we'll just have to disagree on the first point--i don't think those two things should be mapped onto each other (in any case it is only a move that cosmpolitan people would make). i think you can be a very sophisticated diner without knowing any cuisine other than your own--that you don't need to be inserted into a global economy of taste to achieve that. the one thing i like about your definition though is that it can be turned on lots of ethnocentric snobs--i'd argue that on your terms the majority of french food snobs, for instance, aren't sophisticated since they've probably not spent much time eating foods from entirely different culinary traditions*. just don't tell them that though. edited to add: even if we can arrive at some general characteristics/qualifications for a "sophisticated palate"--say, can distinguish constituent flavors of a dish, can appreciate technique while tasting--i would argue that these sophisticated palates would still be almost entirely bound by culture. a palate that may be deemed "sophisticated" in one culinary context may not be able to function analagously in another. thus someone who may be a gourmet in an italian or spanish context, say, may not be able to tell the difference between shit and shinola in another--see all the american foodies who enjoy eating at the crappiest indian restaurants in the u.s; or see my own post in the "one day in bangkok thread" on this forum where i describe what may well have been an esteemed local specialty as tasting and smelling like ass. (a parenthetical digression: there could be a number of reasons for this latter experience--1) possible but highly unlikely is that i do have a sophisticated palate in the thai context and discerned poor quality in a dish i'd never eaten before; 2) i haven't tasted or smelled enough types of ass to be able to judge the dish qua its ass-nes --this is true but not a situation i expect to remedy any time soon; 3) while i have a fairly highly developed palate for bengali and other indian food i'm not really in a position to judge thai food on its own terms.) so, to cut long, belabored story short, i think there is a necessary and crucial difference between saying that some koreans may now be less insular in their tastes and saying that they have become sophisticated diners in the process. *thus some of them will say, as is being said right now in the haute/hot discussion on the general food topics forum, that too much spice/heat in a dish ruins/wastes expensive ingredients etc.

for guelaguetza make sure you go to the original 8th street branch. for indian i'd say go with udupi palace over woodlands in artesia. udupi palace is the one indian restaurant i've eaten at in the u.s that is in the same ballpark as its peers back home. don't know much about japanese in l.a outside of sushi. personally, however i feel no one who comes to l.a to eat ethnic food should go away without a trip to koreatown or to the san gabriel valley for chinese. if three is all you can do my advice would be to ditch the japanese and indian and do mexican, korean and chinese. these are the 3 cuisines (speaking very generally) that are represented MUCH better in l.a than anywhere else--there's better indian food on the whole in new jersey/nyc (though i don't know if there's tam-brahm south indian on par with udupi palace). for chinese i'd say chungking in monterey park or hua's garden (both for fiery sichuan) or chinese islamic (for, well, what it says); or you could go to one of the big seafood houses for cantonese--someone else will have to advise you on the better shanghainese restaurants in the valley (i last ate shanhainese in rosemead/monterey park a long time ago and things have almost definitely shifted). none of these restaurants, however, are big on ambience (don't know if this is important). for korean there's a host of bbq options (depending on how fancy you want to get chosun galbi--dong il jiang--soot bull jeep-shik do rak would be my recommendations in decreasing order of ambience). guelaguetza is a good bet for mexican.

jschyun, this may be a matter of semantics in the end but your use of these words doesn't seem very consistent. in one place you say sophisticated=cosmopolitan and in the bulk of your post you suggest sophisticated=availability of choice. does this mean that a food culture which is dominated by, for lack of a better word, "native" traditions cannot be "sophisticated" in either sense? i don't think the cosmopolitan has any sort of monopoly on sophistication, unless that is how we define it. so perhaps we need to begin with first principles and say what we mean by sophisticated. as for the question of choice, your original post suggested that this "sophistication" is a recent thing, contrasted with 10-15 years ago when "new and exciting" things weren't available. so, what are these "new and exciting" things that have rendered the korean dining experience, if not the palate, more sophisticated? people eat out in droves in the u.s as well--diners, fast-food places etc. are all packed, as are the international food courts in malls. is this also then "sophistication"? perhaps all you're trying to say is that koreans have access to and are in greater numbers trying out more kinds of cuisines than just their own local ones. i don't know if this equates a move towards "sophistication". personally, i'm more interested in how cultures digest outside influences. as such i am not horrified by the thought of gumballs on nachos (though i do find it quite unlikely); cultures and cuisines can become literally re-configured outside their "home" locations. see, for example, how spam has become a "traditional" ingredient in korea or hawaii. this is an interesting discussion though and i look forward to your response. mongo

susan, see above for my pho credentials (non-existent). that being said, i use the chopsticks for the noodles and meat, the soup spoon for the broth; not sure why you need anything but those two. perhaps they were covering all the cutlery bases? if the restaurant's clientele is largely anglo they probably have a default service that may have nothing to do with the clientele's actual abilities and preferences. and i've seen meatballs in many a hardcore pho house (nothing but working class vietnamese patrons) in gardena and torrance in l.a, so i don't think their presence means you're getting something unusual. however, in my experience it is very unusual for the broth to come with everything in it. usually the broth will have just the noodles (and maybe the still mostly raw meat on top)--you mix everything else to your liking. or at least this is how every pho place i've been to in the u.s has done it. (edit to fix grammar)