I’m well aware of the meaning of garam masala thank you, and Masala doesn’t mean ‘spice’ singular, it means a spice mixture (from the Arabic root ‘Ingredients’). ‘Hot Spice Mix’ is the literal translation but wouldn’t be fully accurate either, ‘Warming Spice Mix’ would be better, it’s not ‘hot’ as in spicy heat, but more warming to the body, in an Ayurvedic ‘medical’ sense.
1 Like
So, not rolled, like rugelach? Sounds like hamanatshen, which are shaped into triangles by folding up the circle of pastry around the filling.
1 Like
Nope. None of those. Hamanatshen seem to be the closest thing, but the ones I’m talking about are not triangles but more like a rectangle with a big “belly” covering the filling completly.
Of course who knows, maybe it was just that the Jewish grandma of that family decided she didnt like the standard shape …
2 Likes
Eh, did you even read your own link?
“The invaluable rich Ingredient, called CURRY POWDER, brought from the East-Indies by the famous SOLANDER”
English Curry Powders were sourced by Indian spice merchants, ground, packaged, and shipped to England (where they may have been bottled from the large containers they would have been shipped in, but they weren’t roasting and grinding their own whole spices). The very first imports may have come from the Dutch or Portuguese (possibly mostly whole spices at that time), but it was the establishment of the British East India Company, specifically in Madras, that lead to the popularisation of Curry Powder (which was based on the local Madras masalas, heavily based on Turmeric, Mustard Seed and Fenugreek, along with the standard Coriander and Cumin and perhaps a few other spices) and the creation of several popular Anglo-Indian dishes (again, dishes that wouldn’t have been much like traditional Indian curries, aside from the use of curry powder, it wasn’t until much later that the British Indian Restaurant style was created in London restaurants (by Indian chefs), which was much more similar to the traditional recipes).
To say no food in the world was similar to curry is an odd stance to take.
I didn’t say it wasn’t similar, I said it wasn’t similar enough to call it curry. Do you have a specific example of some pre-historic dish outside of the Indian subcontinent that would be worthy of being called a curry? No, you won’t be able to find one, you wouldn’t even be able to do so for anything from the Indus Valley Civilisation, because we only know for a fact that certain ingredients were used, there’s no written record of anything detailed.
What are you calling the unique aspects of curry preparation that were never used outside India?
Garam Masala is a good example, you could trace that back to post-vedic texts probably, and recipes for that would have been passed around orally before that. That’s definitely a unique flavour profile compared to any other world cuisine, even if you might find some of the ingredients in other Asian cuisines, they’re not going to be used in the same way, the end result wouldn’t taste remotely similar.
How is a dish with a handful of ingredients used in Indian cooking an Indian dish? What is Indian about it?
They invented it.
I’m not reay sure what this sentence means, or that any of it is true. Are you saying there is no one in Ireland that doesn’t want their culture captured with St. Patrick’s Day? Because that’s absolutely false - or does bringing the free market into the discussion make the first part more meaningful?
It doesn’t really matter what Irish people want, and as an Irish person I can tell you that we’re generally annoyed by what we call ‘paddywhackery’, regardless of what the man on the street thinks about it there are plenty of Irish business happy to trade on their culture for a profit (selling entire pubs, fittings, bars, furniture, knick-knacks, the whole lot, around the globe), and the same goes for ethnic restaurants of all types (emphasising cultural stereotypes for a foreign audience in ways they themselves probably wouldn’t be happy to be around in their own private lives). If it’s acceptable for them to do it I don’t see how anyone can complain if someone not from that culture decides to do the same.
What principle?
Is English your first language? There is nothing wrong with a white person opening a hip hop themed fried chicken restaurant, in principle. In practice there may be something wrong with it, if they were to deck the place out with racist memorabilia or something for example, but that doesn’t sound likely. If they just love 90s hip hop (like I do), and they also love fried chicken (who doesn’t?), then I fail to see what the problem could possibly be.
1 Like
Of course not, and nowhere did say anyone should.
This is such a weird conversation. You and others here want me to defend ideas contrary to my beliefs and only tangential to my original comment. I also never said anyone should ignore black culture (I implied quite the opposite), I was just using a hypothetical situation to illustrate how we think about cultural appropriation, “IF black culture were ignored, would that be better?”
And people seem to think I was glossing over record-industry racism, when I was only pointing out how acceptance by a white audience is beneficial for black artists-- sure, it could have been more beneficial if artists weren’t ripped off by managers and labels, but did I really need to mention the obvious?
1 Like
Just here to add; “cury” was a word used in the English kingdom to denote cooking and preparing of food. Cury from the french cuire. It did not mean the spice “curry” or anything to do with India. It goes back to the 1300 hundreds. And possibly is why there is much confusion now and I’m pretty sure along the way the words melded.
Also, you can down load a pdf of this book from the gutenberg project, and it is excellent reading!
FOR TO MAKE GRONDEN BENES
Take benes and dry hem in a nost or in an Ovene and hulle hem wele and wyndewe out þe hulk and wayshe hem clene an do hem to seeþ in gode broth an ete hem with Bacon.
Like Chaucer its nearly phonetic and needs to be read outloud to be understood.
6 Likes
I wouldn’t try to suggest otherwise, just that its history shows that it was originally borrowed. My point being that the difference between cultural appropriation and acceptable assimilation appears to be a function of time.
The machet is Portuguese. The uke was derived from it and is pretty distinctly hawaiian at this point - especially since I don’t think it’s origins with Portuguese sugar farm workers is well known.
And the banjo was very much associated with southern, black culture for a very long time. It’s true it’s associated with bluegrass, but again, the pre-sound recording era had much more face to face cultural sharing (and some appropriation, especially through black face minstrel shows beginning in the 1820s).
I do think that the modern evolution of the recording industry changed the nature of music production and consumption. Used to be, you had to play, know someone who plays, or go somewhere that music was going to be played. Now you just turn on your music player of choice, and play whatever you want. You hear music in grocery stores, shopping malls, and the person who made it doesn’t have to ever meet you face to face. It enriched people who aren’t themselves musicians.
Agreed. The weirder and more obscure the better, too.
3 Likes
They exploited black musicians far more. You can try to argue otherwise, but it’s the reality. Just look at the economic disparity between Elvis and Chuck Berry. One lived in a big mansion to the end of his life, the other didn’t.
That’s a mistake people make - being a musician isn’t a job you do to be rich and famous. Most musicians, even the influential, important ones, weren’t.
I’d say that the exceptions prove the rule.
5 Likes
Keep in mind, many families of Jews who emigrated to South America did so after living as crypto-Jews in Spain and Portugal. Among other things, this means the culture and religion had to hide in plain sight. There was actually a tradition that one female in each generation would be trusted with the full truth, so that she would know WHY they lit candles and made bread before the Friday night dinner, etc. and could pass the knowledge on. So it’s quite possible that the dessert you remember was, in fact, a modified version to hide the fact that it stemmed from Judaism; hamantashen makes more sense in this scenario, since it’s tied to a specific holiday.
5 Likes
Do you work for exposure? Should artists do such things, rather than expect payment for the work they do? Exposure for an artist is helpful, it’s nice, but it doesn’t pay the rent. [quote=“generic_name, post:106, topic:101818”]
when I was only pointing out how acceptance by a white audience is beneficial for black artists
[/quote]
I think it can be, when it comes with a greater slice of the pie, economically speaking. Plenty of black artists got screwed out of royalties, and that’s just a major part of the history. Did it happen to white artists, too, sure, but they were able to more effectively advocate for their rights than were black artists, because they were white in a racist society.
2 Likes
Time, sure… but also it’s about the power to be able to exploit that instrument economically. Because of the first major wave of popularity of Hawaiian music and culture in the 19-teens, many American (mainland) instrument makers profited off their cheaper ukuleles, where as the Hawaiian ones made in Hawaiian lost out in the market. And who has/had access to a market for a particular commodity was generally related to their race and eocnomic position in the US economy. The whiter, maler, and richer you were, the more easily you could access the things that make up a market for a commodity.
1 Like
Black people in America were exploited more in everything they did back then, there was nothing unique about the music industry in that regard. If anything the popularisation of black music that was occurring at that time played a big part in turning the tide on that. It helped normalise white American views of black Americans, it was a process of de-othering.
1 Like
Yes. I know. But people keep denying this to be a fact with regards to the music industry.[quote=“caze, post:114, topic:101818”]
It helped normalise white American views of black Americans, it was a process of de-othering.
[/quote]
That’s up for debate, I’d argue. I think that black music was certainly popular, that doesn’t mean that black PEOPLE were popular with everyone. It’s a mixed bag, with regards to how helpful it was in pushing a civil rights agenda. Maybe some, but it could also be said to have helped reinforce stereotypes.
4 Likes
This is true, was certainly true than, and will continue to be true, with variations.
3 Likes
It is a musical instrument. As far as I know, they were never earned in a ritual or awarded for feats of valor. You could either buy one, or make one yourself. It is a trade good. Anyone with enough shekels or drachma could acquire one.
I have thought of another pretty clear case of appropriation. Not far from us, there is quite a bit of marketing of “Native American Sweat Lodge Rituals”, usually run by someone with fake or greatly exaggerated credentials. They are a little less open about it than they used to be, after an incident in Sedona. But it is absolutely going on.
I personally don’t see that native spirituality is any more supernatural than Atenism or the worship of Baal. But if you are selling an experience, it should be legitimately what it is represented to be.
As a banjo player myself, I can attest that bluegrass players pretty much universally acknowledge the fact that African Americans introduced the predecessor of the instrument to the US. Bela Fleck, of whom I am a giant fan, explored the origins in his film “Throw Down Your Heart”. here is a magical moment from that film, with Ruth Akello.
If it reinforced stereotypes with some people that’s one thing, but you can’t claim it did that with all people. Clearly at the start people weren’t getting paid fairly, weren’t being allowed to play in certain venues, for certain audiences, but ultimately the popularity of the music among all segments of society, the determination of the musicians themselves and the help of others in the music industry who were supporting them helped to overcome a lot of that. I don’t think it changed attitudes overnight, or was anywhere close to the most important aspect of the civil rights movement (obviously), but I think it’s silly to disregard its broader cultural influence. I can’t imagine how you could look at that era and come to any other conclusion than that music had a net positive effect on American society.
Did I claim that? [quote=“caze, post:118, topic:101818”]
I think it’s silly to disregard its broader cultural influence.
[/quote]
I didn’t.[quote=“caze, post:118, topic:101818”]
I can’t imagine how you could look at that era and come to any other conclusion than that music had a net positive effect on American society.
[/quote]
Maybe because there is still pretty deeply entrenched racism in the US? It’s better, yes, but it’s not fixed by any stretch of the imagination.
1 Like
cool
No doubt. But that doesn’t contradict what I said, a net positive effect just means things get better, it doesn’t mean things become perfect. Cultural mixing is a part of what helps to break down racism, and cultural ‘appropriation’ doesn’t really exist as far as I can see.
1 Like
Again. I’m very aware. I do have a phd in history, you know.
I think you’re wrong there, but YMMV. Not all cultural mixing is appropriation, but it exists as a thing in American popular culture, and generally involves less political and economically powerful people having their culture turned into a disnified version of culture that more politically and economically powerful people then engage and enjoy in order to signal their own cultural authenticity.
4 Likes
