How to approach an unfamiliar cuisine

[Pan]

But when the rule is to keep the aesthetic loyal to an external purpose, like god, art is compormised. It might be great art, but what I see when I walk around a museum is a hell of lot of religious pictures. And while they are great art, who knows how much greater the art might have been if it wasn't tied to religion in that way.

I think you weakened your argument with that tangent. Since a lot of the greatest art of all time is specifically religious, it's kind of preposterous to suggest that it could have been greater if it was secular. Perhaps you might want to stick to food in this argument?

I have to throw my hat in the ring with Steve here. When an artist chooses his/her own parameters with respect to creating art, that can be a positive force and can provide focus and specificity. When limitations are imposed from without it often compromises the work. Of course, its a hard position to prove due to lack of control comparisons but from my own experience I find imposed limitations to be deleterious.

And you think that, since you find it deleterious, so did Michelangelo, Rafaello Sanzio, Tician, Masaccio, Duccio, Giotto, Rembrandt, Durer, Donatello, Andrea and Giovanni Pisano, etc., etc.? The fact is that imposed limitations were a function of the patronage system. Now, you can criticize the system of patronage that existed before the 19th century or so, but it was responsible for providing steady income for a large number of great artists and an even larger number of not-so-great artists. And during the time when every artist needed to be retained by a patron, a very large number of great works were created. Nowadays, artists are free to work as they like if they don't have commissions and feel like making art works, but there is no guarantee (to say the least) of steady income. If you prefer the current system, under which very few artists can support themselves with their artwork and those who earn a good living at it are mostly those who appeal to a single person (the current critic of the New York Times) or a very small number of people who may choose to buy out a whole show (such as the Saatchi brothers, I've heard - perhaps that's old information, though), more power to you, because patronage isn't coming back any time soon. But to make an argument that amounts to an indictment of the quality of all art produced on commission and for patrons doesn't seem very sensible to me.

So shall we get back to food?

[anil]

in search of balance, i found this:

http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/2000/4/9_3.html

.....

what do we know?

A thing never mentioned in much of the press in the US, is the systemic decimation of the cultural and religious identity of Tibet by the Chinese; through forced migrations, forced inter-marriages as well as demolishing and destruction of many of the buddhist monestaries. Which pretty much made sure that the post cultural revolution tibet was not like the young Dalailama and his entourage left.

This is not to say that the tibetian dhabas near Delhi Univ. and Bus-Terminus in Delhi are great placs for food - Dharamsala, Bodh Gaya,Sikkim and of course Nepal have sizeable tibetian population -

[Steve Plotnicki]

I think you weakened your argument with that tangent. Since a lot of the greatest art of all time is specifically religious, it's kind of preposterous to suggest that it could have been greater if it was secular. Perhaps you might want to stick to food in this argument

But the church only influenced the content, they didn't muck around with technique. It really makes no difference that The Last Supper is a religious painting, if they had corporations back then they could have called it "Board Meeting Before the Ouster." But when you tell a cook they can't use saltback to flavor a dish, that prevents it from being the best dish possible. The Pope's directions did not prevent Michaelangelo from painting the best Sistine Chapel he could possibly paint.

This is not to say that the tibetian dhabas near Delhi Univ. and Bus-Terminus in Delhi are great places for food - Dharamsala, Bodh Gaya,Sikkim and of course Nepal have sizeable tibetian population -

It would just be easier if someone said whether Tibetan food is good or not. So far, Jin is the only person swearing by it because she likes porridge.

Edited March 30, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Stone]

It would just be easier if someone said whether Tibetan food is good or not. So far, Jin is the only person swearing by it because she likes porridge.

Tibetan food is pretty bad. Sorry, but true.

[Fat Guy]

My wife likes Tibetan food so much we named our dog after it.

[Tonyfinch]

My wife likes Tibetan food so much we named our dog after it.

What, your dog's name is Yak's Cheese?

Edited March 30, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Fat Guy]

Momo, the mainstay of the Tibetans, is a delicious dumpling, stuffed with minced meat and steamed or fried. About 8 - 10 eaten in 5 minutes can make you laugh with joy. Normally momos are eaten dipped in a wonderfully red chilli sauce, which makes you dance.

http://www.momotours.com/specials.htm

Not only did they use the word "delicious," they even used the word "dance."

[Tonyfinch]

Oh, of course Momo. I forgot, sorry.

It seems that all we've said really is that restaurant cuisines which are from wealthy countries where people can eat for pleasure are better than those where people eat mainly for survival. Those poor countries which do have great cuisines derive them from the mega wealthy royal and aristocratic feasting cuisine, not from what the majority of the population eat everyday. The Tibetan version has disappeared and there never was an African one.

Wealthy Protestant countries like Holland and Germany have poorer cuisines because Protestantism as a philosophy opposed surfeit and excess for pleasure and regarded conspicuous gourmandising as sinful. It stressed the virtue of restraint and plainness. Eating purely for pleasure was wrong. This extends to the UK and to the Puritan Founding Fathers of the USA.

Where does this leave the writer? Well he can keep his gullet to the ground for the emergence of the "new Tibetan" or the "new African", or whatever, cuisine and ensure that the audience are aware of his awareness and sympathy with such new culinary developments. He cannot dismiss anything, which doesn't mean he cannot express likes and dislikes, but he should beware of sneering at easy targets (I can say "squirrel guts---bleeech", but the writer should try at least to analyse and communicate WHY he feels bleeech and to admit to the possibility that squirrel guts might not always provoke a bleeech reaction).

A food writer who dismisses a whole national cuisine is not one to be taken seriously IMO. I even have trouble when they dismiss a whole food. I remember Fay Maschler, doyenne reviewer of the London Standard, letting slip that she hated tomatoes. Naturally she's entitled to her dislikes but I feel she should have kept quiet about this particular peccadillo as it can't help bring her judgement into question on any meal or cuisine which likes to utilise the tomato.

Edited March 30, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Momo, the mainstay of the Tibetans, is a delicious dumpling, stuffed with minced meat and steamed or fried. About 8 - 10 eaten in 5 minutes can make you laugh with joy. Normally momos are eaten dipped in a wonderfully red chilli sauce, which makes you dance.

Well you see how easy it is? Jin wrote about the porridge, you wrote about the Yak milk and cheese, and now Monotours wrote about the Momo's. It really isn't all that difficult to find out if a place has good cuisine or not. But I hope they have more then three things on the menu.

It seems that all we've said really is that restaurant cuisines which are from wealthy countries where people can eat for pleasure are better than those where people eat mainly for survival.

This is not quite right. Many poor countries have indiginous cuisines that are delicious. Take Mexico. How about Vietnam? How about India? I once had a business partner whose family came from deep in the Campania region of Italy. On a trip to Positano, he and I and the wives took a long drive on a Sunday morning to visit them. We got there to find a town of 800 people and many of them owned small plots of land and they farmed for sustenance and sold off their extra crops so they would have money to buy simple things like shoes. But the food they served was simple, but delicious. No shortage of tomatoes, either fresh or preserved.

You see I believe that Wilfrid is right about one thing, to the Dutch, the food in Holland tastes good. Just like the food tastes good to you lot in Britain . But it isn't Protestantism that made the food bad. That is putting the cart before the horse. The food was bad before Protestantism existed. All Protestanism did was give people a rationale about why they shouldn't care about food. It's like kosher meat. Ask any strictly kosher person about the quality of kosher meat and they are brainwashed into believing that kosher meat tastes better. How would they even know? It's just an internalized rationale that religious elders pushed on their congregations to keep them bonded together. I mean there is truth in numbers right? If all the people in your congregation say kosher meat is better, then it becomes true doesn't it? So saying that surfeit and excess for pleasure is wrong, is a wondeful religious philosophy to adopt for countries that have poor agro systems.

Do you not think that there was a conspiracy between the Church of England and the British government, that in conjunction with effecting the Enclosure Laws they would preach that deriving pleasure from food is a bad thing? There had to be. That is exactly what religion is used for. Political control. It is too great a coincidence of history that the quality of food declined and the people were taught that they shouldn't care at about the same time. And just look at what happened in Britain when they had some economic breathing room and the people didn't rely on religion any longer to explain everyday phenomena to them, the food in Britain improved twenty fold.

A food writer who dismisses a whole national cuisine is not one to be taken seriously IMO. I even have trouble when they dismiss a whole food. I remember Fay Maschler, doyenne reviewer of the London Standard, letting slip that she hated tomatoes. Naturally she's entitled to her dislikes but I feel she should have kept quiet about this particular peccadillo as it can't help bring her judgement into question on any meal or cuisine which likes to utilise the tomato.

You are confusing a food writer with a restaurant reviewer. Two different things. Plus you are using a number of different definitions of the word cuisine rolled into one. But I am going to save that parsing for a different thread.

Edited March 30, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[Beachfan]

You see I believe that Wilfrid is right about one thing, to the Dutch, the food in Holland tastes good.

They may like it, but they know it isn't good. On my first trip to Amsterdam, they had one of those hardcover glossy "Exploring .... (fill in destination)" that is often in hotels.

First paragraph under food said something like "For interesting food, try one of our many Indonesian or Thai restaurants. Dutch cuisine is pretty dull, as our women are too busy to spend much time in the kitchen".

True story.

[Jason Perlow]

Momo, the mainstay of the Tibetans, is a delicious dumpling, stuffed with minced meat and steamed or fried. About 8 - 10 eaten in 5 minutes can make you laugh with joy. Normally momos are eaten dipped in a wonderfully red chilli sauce, which makes you dance.

http://www.momotours.com/specials.htm

Not only did they use the word "delicious," they even used the word "dance."

I love their momo recipe... funny as hell.

http://www.momotours.com/recipemo.htm

1. MAKE SURE YAK IS DEAD

2. IF NOT, KILL

3. EXTRACT 1KG, LEG MEAT

4. MINCE

5. MAKE SURE YAK IS DEAD

...

[Steve Plotnicki]

They may like it, but they know it isn't good. On my first trip to Amsterdam, they had one of those hardcover glossy "Exploring .... (fill in destination)" that is often in hotels.

First paragraph under food said something like "For interesting food, try one of our many Indonesian or Thai restaurants. Dutch cuisine is pretty dull, as our women are too busy to spend much time in the kitchen".

I wish more people posted stuff like that. In all the years I've been following food, I don't think I ever heard anyone tell me that they ate well in Amsterdam outside of herring stands and rijstaafel. In fact they typically claim the food is inedible. Still, you have to prove to people like CDH that the food isn't any good. Or hear excuses for it like they have an inferior sense of smell. But this time was the first time I heard the one about the women working and not being cooks.

[g.johnson]

Do you not think that there was a conspiracy between the Church of England and the British government, that in conjunction with effecting the Enclosure Laws they would preach that deriving pleasure from food is a bad thing? There had to be.

"Heaven is eating pate de foie gras to the sound of trumpets."

The Reverend Sydney Smith 1771-1845

[Steve Plotnicki]

Why is it that what I said is taken to mean, no make that, it has to be true for each and every example of words uttered by a Protestant Reverand? Tony said the following,

Wealthy Protestant countries like Holland and Germany have poorer cuisines because Protestantism as a philosophy opposed surfeit and excess for pleasure and regarded conspicuous gourmandising as sinful. It stressed the virtue of restraint and plainness. Eating purely for pleasure was wrong. This extends to the UK and to the Puritan Founding Fathers of the USA.

Is it not true?

I just Googles our buddy Reverand Smith and it seems he was a pretty liberal fellow

Reverand Smith

[Sandra Levine]

It should be noted that I actually had a very good apple tartlet in Amsterdam. We were curious about the local cuisine and went to a restaurant that specialized in Dutch dishes. I was at a loss when the chef came out and asked what I thought of the stringy, brown-ish stew I was eating. I told him, in what I thought was a triumph of diplomacy, that it made me very nostalgic for my grandmother's cooking. The look on his face, however, told me that he understood every nuance of my meaning.

[g.johnson]

Wealthy Protestant countries like Holland and Germany have poorer cuisines because Protestantism as a philosophy opposed surfeit and excess for pleasure and regarded conspicuous gourmandising as sinful. It stressed the virtue of restraint and plainness. Eating purely for pleasure was wrong. This extends to the UK and to the Puritan Founding Fathers of the USA.

Is it not true?

I'm not sure it is true, though I'm no historian. In attitude and doctrine the Church of England has always been closer to Roman Catholicism than to the grim Calvinism of continental Europe. The Pilgrim Fathers left England after the restoration (initially for Holland, I think) because they disapproved of the licentiousness of the country under Charles II. Though I can think of literary examples of the worldly ecclesiastics (Jonathan Swift, Laurence Sterne, characters in Trollope and Dickens), I can't, off the top of my head, think of any ascetics. Even Casaubon, though a pedant and a boor, keeps a good table.

Edited March 30, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[stefanyb]

Doesn't it all come down to passion and priorities? All cultures have their passions, or I'd imagine thats true, even if their passion is stoicism. When the passion of a culture is "the body" then those things that can best be experienced by the senses develop over time into exquisite forms. When it is intellectual pursuits that are more important in a culture then sensual pleasures take second place and cerebral activities are more prized. Passions of a culture can also morph over time based on changing geo-politics, weather patterns, economic circumstances, immigration etc.

Protestantism prizes good works and self denial especially in pleasures of the body. It would be unreasonable to expect things that provide sensual pleasure to be highly developed in a culture that labels these things as sinful.

The US being basically a Protestant country had a very unintersting gastronomic history until immigration from places other than Protestant countries infiltrated the culture.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Try this one on

Puritans

If I read that correctly, it says that the economic reason they left England is because they couldn't farm the land as a result of enclosure. But then it also syas that Puritansim was based on Calvinism. So there is a fissure somewhere. I tried to Google the enclosure laws and the church of England and all I could find was that at first the clergy were against them. But that doesn't make sense since the King is the head of the Church? Was the King against the enclosure laws?

[g.johnson]

I'm out of my historical depth but I don't think the Church of England was a monolithic organization*. There were numerous different factions during and after the Civil War. The site you found makes it clear that the Puritans thought that the hierarchy of the CoE was corrupt. But they lost. You should remember that the most holy sacrament of the CoE is afternoon tea.

*It's certainly not the case that the CoE was controlled by Charles II -- his father had tried to do that and lost his head as a consequence.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Glyn - Well we are hung up in a different time period. Where do we find the CoE's position on somatic pleasure during Victorian times and the era that preceded it?

Doesn't it all come down to passion and priorities? All cultures have their passions, or I'd imagine thats true, even if their passion is stoicism. When the passion of a culture is "the body" then those things that can best be experienced by the senses develop over time into exquisite forms. When it is intellectual pursuits that are more important in a culture then sensual pleasures take second place and cerebral activities are more prized. Passions of a culture can also morph over time based on changing geo-politics, weather patterns, economic circumstances, immigration etc.

Stef - Isn't this just a secular way of stating the same thing? What culture would develop a culture of "the body" if it didn't have foods and wines that were sensual? Is Protestantism a reaction to people being overly sensual, or is it an answer to why my potatoes don't taste as good as that other guys?

Protestantism prizes good works and self denial especially in pleasures of the body. It would be unreasonable to expect things that provide sensual pleasure to be highly developed in a culture that labels these things as sinful.

Does this mean the British are bad lovers?

[indiagirl]

Must go to Blimpy Burger. Order the Ultimate Cheese Sandwich:

Fried Egg

Fried Onions

Fried Pepper Rings

Provolone

Swiss

Mozzarella

Blue Cheese

Dijon Mustard

Lettuce

Tomato

Kaiser Roll

guajolote, that was indeed one hell of a sandwich. many thanks. plotnicki, the blue cheese was not too much. it was perfect

i would post a detailed review of the experience but haven't figured out where to do it yet. i'm sure the info is somewhere on the site. i don't want to start a thread because i'm not sure it can engender a discussion ....

this diversion brought to you by blimpy burgers, ann arbor. and now back t the regularly scheduled puritanism.

[stefanyb]

Does this mean the British are bad lovers?

Well, supposedly they say "dahling, I believe I am arrriving" at the culmination of their sexual encounters. You can draw your own conclusions.

[indiagirl]

just want to clarify, this is not a problem or a behavior trait adopted by ex-British colonies.

[stefanyb]

Of course, I except former monks, anyway.

Edited March 30, 2003 by stefanyb (log)

[maggiethecat]

(Jonathan Swift, Laurence Sterne, characters in Trollope and Dickens),  I  can't, off the top of my head, think of any ascetics. Even Casaubon, though a pedant and a boor, keeps a good table.

May I mention the Anglican clergyman, wit, supporter of women's rights, reforming politician and gourmet, the Rev. Sydney Smith? He's one of the guests at my "If you could have dinner with any three people in history dinner party.." H is the platonic ideal of the C of E clergy man. What's not to love about a man who said:

"What two ideas are more inseperable than beer and Britania?"

"I am convinced digestion is the great secret of life."

"I have no relish for the country...it is a kind of healthy grave"

"Heaven is eating pates de foie gras to the sound of trumpets"

"How can a bishop marry? How can he flirt? The most he can say is "I will see you in the vestry after service"

Jane Grigson devotes a chapter to Smith in "Food with the Famous."

The other two diners vary (Lizst and Balzac show up a lot) but Sydney Smith is My Main Man.

(If someone has already mentioned him here, I apologize. Haven't read all of the thread.