mashed avocados
Melt a big knob of butter in the middle of all of them and inject it my veins. drool
As long as they are both chunky, I’ll allow it.
Nah, you don’t eat mashed taters with thin crisps (corn or otherwise). You could, but typically people don’t.
It’s a dipper if you use gravey and sausages
It’s a real banger.
Which is why mushy peas are British guacamole:
Damn, I need to do some spiced mushi peas sometime. They seem like with enough msg, black pepper and a bit of cheese they will make a delicious & healthy dip.
And you don’t boil avocados for guac
Edit: or add citrus to mash. I was going to say you can’t add dairy to guac, but guac and sour cream go very well together. Def no butter or milk though shudder
You know, some citrus to a baked tater would be awesome probably. Would need to be lime, I think.
<Spitefully squeezes kumquats onto a baked potato, maintaining direct eye contact>
Yeah actually, add some chili, you’ve basically got tajin, I can see that. Indian cuisine has awesome chili potatoes, I wouldn’t be surprised if there usually citrus in there.
More like guac is American hummus, considering chickpeas are one of the oldest domesticated plants we know of.
American??
Like the continent
Yeah fair
Guacamole isn’t eaten on its own or with some form of gravy. Mashed potatoes are. One can argue about open face sandwich vs. burrito and the addition of each to their respective cuisine but that’s a hard sell.
FWIW, Avocado toast doesn’t factor into the discussion any more then a baked potato would imo.
Mashed potato toast never really caught on anywhere.
Probably that’s a lot of carbs. Avocado has oils and fats and it’s a fruit.
Pizza is just an open-face sandwich. Like a chili melt. Same thing.
Meh, it’s different operations. The bread is already baked before you make the sandwich, pizza dough is raaaaaw.
No pizza in either photo.
What do you mean? It’s dough with stuff on top.
Cats and dogs both have 4 legs and a tail. Are they the same thing?
They’re both mammals, yes.
What other things do you get confused about?
I could ask you the same question. Those are all technically pizzas. They are cooked dough with toppings on it, usually pizza sauce and cheese.
I don’t understand your confusion with the subject. Especially with comparing mammals to mammals. We are all incredibly similar with a few genetic differences. Just like a generic oven baked pizza or a tortilla pizza. They’re different, but also the same.
Pizza purists are so funny. Like oh, your culture/city/country has a monopoly on putting random stuff on top of flat bread while it’s baking? Get real. Probably the first loaf of flatbread ever made, the person eating it was like “This would be better with some sauce and stuff on top while it’s baked.”
Pizza is toast
Pizza is a savoury cake.
Do people eat whole bowls of guacamole? Just like spoonfuls into your mouth?
As one of the 7 people who dislikes avocados - that seems horrifying.
Both avocados and quacamole are wildly overrated, I’m in San Diego and it’s every where.
I’d disappear avocados for the sake of potatoes.I mean, if you consider tortilla chips to be edible guacamole spoons, then yes.
Guacamole is so much nicer than avocado. I probably eat more guac than mashed potatoes, usually on toast or in wraps though. As the Aztec gods intended.
Yes, we used to but we stopped during the great avocado famine that lasted from 1845 until 1953. About 1 million of us died.
Except that Potatoes are from the new world…
Tomatoes are too but are essential for many Italian dishes.
Very true, which makes you think what their food was before they hijacked the tomato.
I shudder just thinking about it.
Mushy peas are just British guacamole
The guac they deserve
Seeing that both vegetables were part of the Columbian exchange and therefore have no pre 1500 European roots it’s improper to call any potato preparation ‘Irish’.
What and marinara sauce isn’t Italian? Mapo tofu isn’t chinese? Modern sushi isn’t japananese?
Italian cuisine is particularly enjoyable for this. The carbonara sauce was an improvisation by an American army cook, and one of the first recipes had it made with cream.
And part off modern sushi is Norwegian, as they had an excess of salmon they kind of imposed the idea to use it on sushi, which worked.
Chilly peppers in Indian cuisine where introduced by the Portugese
Cuisine is one of the most fusion sensitive bits of culture out there and most claims of originality are bogus in a way.
I don’t think a dish has to be 100% original from the domestication of the species of the ingredients all the way to the invention of the dish. I would say it’s valid to claim a variation of a dish with just one tiny tweak. Norwegians can’t claim the entirety of sushi but they are totally valid in claiming specifically salmon sushi. The French can’t claim to have invented neither wheat, flour, bread, the baking of bread in ovens or any of the other steps it took in-between, but they can claim the baguette specifically as a French bread.
I don’t think any food type can be claimed by a nation, that idea is very novel. You talk about bread and I think about the quintessential Italian ciabatta bread, which was invented in the 1990’s.
But I do really enjoy experiencing different cultures. I don’t subscribe to the idea of ownership of any of it by any country or culture. That is all.
The Swedes can keep the entire claim to Surströmming.
Have you met our Lord and savior hakarl?
That just gets a bad reputation because of non AI slop on social media.
The idea of a national culture having some claim on a food type is novel? I’d say the concept is pretty common and widespread.
Yes it’s quite novel. Most national identities and stereotypes are from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Read Eric Hobsbawns ‘the invention of tradition’’ for example.
The Italian cuisine and it’s staples are very much a construction from the post war period, look at the history of the spaghetti carbonara, which was wiped up by an American army cook, but was later elevated to an supposedly ‘ancient’ recipe.
But before the era of nationalism most people didn’t think in terms of nations and national stereotypes.
Ok “nationalism” sure. But you can’t argue that cultural associations didn’t exist. This is why we had trade routes. And agriculture influenced by regional geography, climate, etc.
You point out very carefully selected specific examples like carbonara. This is like the exception that proves the rule.
Novel and widespread have nothing to do with aech other.
From the wikipedia article about nations:
The broad consensus amongst scholars of nationalism is that nations are a recent phenomenon. However, some historians argue that their existence can be traced to the medieval period, or a minority believe even to antiquity.
This reminds me of working in a brewery/restaurant kitchen in the middle of a rich Midwestern suburb (read: white as white gets), we wanted to do teriyaki wings. Instead of letting us make our own sauce, our idiot manager brought in a premade sauce made by a Chinese company in “the Korean style”. So it was a Chinese-made Korean-style Japanese-American sauce. Fucking what? Especially silly considering real teriyaki sauce is just four very easily attainable ingredients in more-or-less equal parts.
I wish to know this four ingredient teriyaki recipe.
Soy sauce, sugar, sake, and mirin.. Garlic, ginger, chili, etc are all excellent additions, but aren’t necessary traditional. But as is kind of the main theme of this comment section’s discussion, nothing’s really “traditional” until thousands of people have done it thousands of different ways and enough time passes to be able to put it into some kind of historical and often geographic context. That is to say, I’m just a white guy on the Internet who’s done a fairly shallow amount of research into this subject, so definitely don’t take my word as teriyaki gospel.
Ginger, garlic, soysauce, brown sugar.
You flavor a neutral oil with the ginger and garlic (don’t burn), add the brown sugar, a bit of soysauce, caramelize, add water, mirin or cooking wine slowly until desired thickness. You can do cornstarch slurry to dilute the flavor while maintaining the thickness.
You can toast some sesame at the start for that flavor.
The caramelized sugar may solidify if the liquid is too cold, redissolve it by increasing heat and/or liquid.
japananese
Lol
Shut up, let me enjoy my bananana in peace.
So nothing can be described as Irish if it didn’t exist since the beginning of the earth on the land we could later call Ireland? Or where is the cutoff, the year 1400?
I’m just disputing the started fact that mashed potato is an Irish invention. There’s plenty of Irish things after that date, but that’s because people didn’t really think about ‘national’ things untill the late 19th century, take the Scottish tartan, fi (which was popularized by an English textile merchant btw).
With that logic any Mexican dish that contains cumin, cilantro, wheat or any dairy product including cheese is not real Mexican.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Cuisine is particularly evolutionary.
The question ‘what is Mexican’ is particularly dark in this context as the conquistadors managed to wipe it so much of it’s people and culture.
You’re talking half a millennium ago…
I only agree with this line of reasoning because you would have to conclude that there is nothing quintessentially US American with everything coming either from Native American culture (which they reject) or immigrant culture.
You think cultures can’t change? Ireland was colonized by Britain. They forced them to grow potatoes. You don’t think that influenced Irish culture?
I do think cultures can change. I only don’t think foodstuffs become a national thing that way. Like I said as a response in this thread that certainly the original population and culture of the Aztecs was almost completely destroyed.
The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English is a bit ironic, with a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, at least for me.
The appropriation of certain dishes as national is, in itself, a rather novel idea.
the Aztecs was almost completely destroyed.
How is this even relevant? I really don’t see any connection.
The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English is a bit ironic, with a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, at least for me.
How so? The potato was force upon them, not mashed potatoes specifically. It would be totally understandable if the Irish would choose to get rid of everything that has anything to do with the British. This happens to a degree that the language Gaelic is revitalized. But it’s not up to me as a foreigner who never set foot on Ireland to expect that from them. Potato is an important food item all over Europe. “The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English” is just an observation. You can’t dispute observations because they are “a bit ironic”. That’s not how history works.
The appropriation of certain dishes as national is, in itself, a rather novel idea.
How is this even an argument for your side? Nations are a social construct developed long after Columbus. By saying, anything that came after the 1400s can’t be part of a national identity, you are implying that nations exist since for ever.
I think that we do not disagree in most points.
My argument is in line with ‘the invention of tradition’ of Eric Hobsbawn and ‘imagined communities’ by Benedict Anderson in that most ‘national identity and tradition’ is an actively put forward construct that is really not as ancient as it purports.
The ownership of national dishes is what I argue against, the one in this thread that elicited my response was that of mashed potatoes being an Irish dish. If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
So no disagreement in that matter, I would say.
The Aztec argument is about what is fundamentally Mexican and the tragedy of that civilization being wiped out. This is another example that traditionalism about culture is a rather silly position to hold in an argument.
But if you re read the thread I think you’ll find that
I think you misunderstood the meme and worded your first comment poorly.
The meme is saying that the equivalent of guacamole on the island of Ireland is mashed potatoes. It doesn’t say the Irish invented it, it doesn’t really focus on national identity. I mean on Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Different nations and the meme just says Irish.
And instead of saying “there is no such thing as Irish”, you said “potatoes aren’t Irish enough because they came too late”, implying that there is such a thing as Irish culture but potatoes don’t qualify.
If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
The interlocutor was me and all I’m saying is that the British Empire forced potatoes on the Irish and because of that, potatoes were so wide spread in Ireland that they quality as a national dish. How is that silly? I still don’t follow. Imagine having to grow potatoes and then trying out a variety of dishes. Silly.
I mean, im of the ‘poptart is basically a dessert calzone’ persuasion, so… yeah, sure why not.
There are differences, but basically yes.
It’s times like this that I worry about legalizing weed
No because avocado is a berry but potato is a tuber
There was a can of refried beans that proudly stated “Mexican mashed potatoes”
