"Timo" > wrote in message
...
> On Sunday, 31 March 2013 08:34:59 UTC+10, Farm1 wrote:
>> "Timo" wrote:
>> > On Saturday, 30 March 2013 09:14:02 UTC+10, Farm1 wrote:
>> >
>> >> Neeldess to say, I dont' live in Queensland and would never even think
>> >> of
>> >> doign so. I also know not to call a dish based on meat, curry powder
>> >> and
>> >> fruit an "English curry".
>> >
>> > What would _you_ call an "English curry"?
>>
>> A Chicken Tikka Masala or a Beef Vindaloo. But I'd only attach the
>> adjective to either of them because I know they are so popular in the UK.
>
> Indian or modern Anglo-Indian. Why wouldn't you call the kind of curry
> cooked in England for a couple of centuries "English"?
>

For the same reason that I'm amused by the the expression "as American as
apple pie".

>> > Why mention Cotta's book? Isn't it an _Indian_ cookbook?
>>
>> Cotta's book was written, published and printed n Australia and repeats
>> the
>> recieps he cooked in his restaurant here in Aus.
>
> Isn't it an _Indian_ cookbook. What does that have to do with English
> curries? Do you think that English curries are Indian?

Do you read what you write?

>> 'English curry' is a meaningless term. It didn't apply in Australia in
>> the
>> 1980s and still doesn't.
>
> Why meaningless? The English had been cooking curries, divorced from
> Indian food, for centuries. You think those dishes weren't "English", or
> they weren't "curries"?
>
> It's a distinctive group of dishes, cooked and eaten by the English (and
> appeared in colonial cuisines), and except for the sub-class of them that
> was adopted by the Japanese (and Koreans), quite "English".
>
> Why aren't they "English curries"?
>
> What would Cotta's book have to do with any of that? Isn't Cotta's book an
> _Indian_ cookbook? Do you think Indian curries are "English"? That English
> curries are Indian?

LOL. IYou didn't pick up on what I wrote in any previous post so I dont'
see any point in pursuing the conversation.