Gene Weingarten is being DRAGGED for his article hating on indian food

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

An outsider obviously will have an ignorant take, like yours. Most people, knowing themselves to be ignorant, won't broadcast it. Weingarten not only broadcast it -- he didn't even recognize his own ignorance. When called out, he then doubled down, because he felt he wasn't being offensive in trashing an entire cusine. Typical privilege.

I'm glad he was called out, as well as the Post in general.

He did, though:

Thought this was an insightful rejoinder...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP big Gene fan from way back here.

Here's his defense on Twitter:

"From start to finish plus the illo, the column was about what a whining infantile ignorant d---head I am."

The thing is - that stance is not funny any more. I'm as big of a fan of self deprecation as anyone, but, this isn't that? This is an old white guy bragging about how he doesn't have to do anything he doesn't like, and ho boy, he sure doesn't like these foods. Imagine a woman or POC writing this. Would never be allowed.

Grow up, Gene. No one wants to hear it.

Thank you.

Also, if a POC or a woman of any race did write something about White folks or men, it would be punching up, so not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

Curry probably came from "Kadhi" which is a dish made of yogurt and chickpea flour. Every thing is not "curry" or sauced in Indian food. Usually, there is a dry dish (bread, rice) and a dish with sauce or stew. People can call it curry or gravy or sauce or jhor or rasdaar or rassa or kadhi or anything else they want. There are so many regional languages and dialects that the every thing has different names. One thing for sure, most people have not eaten the range of Indian cuisine in the US. For that, you need several friends from India from different regions, who are good home cooks and good hosts. You cannot base Indian cooking on the typical Indian fare you get in restaurants. My mom usually labelled her vegetarian dishes as sookhi (dry) subji (vegetable) and the ones that had sauce/ gravy as geeli (wet) subji.

Do you ever have a meal with just dry/vegetable and no wet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

Curry probably came from "Kadhi" which is a dish made of yogurt and chickpea flour. Every thing is not "curry" or sauced in Indian food. Usually, there is a dry dish (bread, rice) and a dish with sauce or stew. People can call it curry or gravy or sauce or jhor or rasdaar or rassa or kadhi or anything else they want. There are so many regional languages and dialects that the every thing has different names. One thing for sure, most people have not eaten the range of Indian cuisine in the US. For that, you need several friends from India from different regions, who are good home cooks and good hosts. You cannot base Indian cooking on the typical Indian fare you get in restaurants. My mom usually labelled her vegetarian dishes as sookhi (dry) subji (vegetable) and the ones that had sauce/ gravy as geeli (wet) subji.

Do you ever have a meal with just dry/vegetable and no wet?

DP here. Yes, in my house we do. Though it's more typical to have wet, dry, a carb, and some kind of fresh vegetable (e.g. cucumber and tomato).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Indian food is nasty. Everything is soaked in that god awful curry that can’t tell whether you are eating beef or chicken.

You are free to dislike whatever food you dislike, and to announce it however you see fit, even if you end up demonstrating what a self-own is. Go for it.

But that's not a humor column, and it's not edgy or insightful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

Curry probably came from "Kadhi" which is a dish made of yogurt and chickpea flour. Every thing is not "curry" or sauced in Indian food. Usually, there is a dry dish (bread, rice) and a dish with sauce or stew. People can call it curry or gravy or sauce or jhor or rasdaar or rassa or kadhi or anything else they want. There are so many regional languages and dialects that the every thing has different names. One thing for sure, most people have not eaten the range of Indian cuisine in the US. For that, you need several friends from India from different regions, who are good home cooks and good hosts. You cannot base Indian cooking on the typical Indian fare you get in restaurants. My mom usually labelled her vegetarian dishes as sookhi (dry) subji (vegetable) and the ones that had sauce/ gravy as geeli (wet) subji.

Do you ever have a meal with just dry/vegetable and no wet?

DP. My mom often serves a simple meal for dinner: phulkas with dry sabzi, mixed rice with papad and pickles, upma or idli with chutney, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

Curry probably came from "Kadhi" which is a dish made of yogurt and chickpea flour. Every thing is not "curry" or sauced in Indian food. Usually, there is a dry dish (bread, rice) and a dish with sauce or stew. People can call it curry or gravy or sauce or jhor or rasdaar or rassa or kadhi or anything else they want. There are so many regional languages and dialects that the every thing has different names. One thing for sure, most people have not eaten the range of Indian cuisine in the US. For that, you need several friends from India from different regions, who are good home cooks and good hosts. You cannot base Indian cooking on the typical Indian fare you get in restaurants. My mom usually labelled her vegetarian dishes as sookhi (dry) subji (vegetable) and the ones that had sauce/ gravy as geeli (wet) subji.

From wikipedia:
Curry is an anglicised form of the Tamil word kaṟi meaning 'sauce' or 'relish for rice' that uses the leaves of the curry tree (Murraya koenigii).[8][9] The word kari is also used in other Dravidian languages, namely in Malayalam, Kannada and Kodava with the meaning of "vegetables (or meat) of any kind (raw or boiled), curry".[10] Kaṟi is described in a mid-17th century Portuguese cookbook by members of the British East India Company,[11] who were trading with Tamil merchants along the Coromandel Coast of southeast India,[12] becoming known as a "spice blend ... called kari podi or curry powder".[12] The first known appearance in its anglicised form (spelled currey) appears in a 1747 book of recipes published by Hannah Glasse.[9][11]

The word cury in the 1390s English cookbook, The Forme of Cury,[11] is unrelated, coming from the Middle French word cuire, meaning 'to cook'.[13]

As a Tamil, I had to represent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is really more British. We don’t say “I went for a curry” in nearly the same way. Brits say it all the time.

Curry probably came from "Kadhi" which is a dish made of yogurt and chickpea flour. Every thing is not "curry" or sauced in Indian food. Usually, there is a dry dish (bread, rice) and a dish with sauce or stew. People can call it curry or gravy or sauce or jhor or rasdaar or rassa or kadhi or anything else they want. There are so many regional languages and dialects that the every thing has different names. One thing for sure, most people have not eaten the range of Indian cuisine in the US. For that, you need several friends from India from different regions, who are good home cooks and good hosts. You cannot base Indian cooking on the typical Indian fare you get in restaurants. My mom usually labelled her vegetarian dishes as sookhi (dry) subji (vegetable) and the ones that had sauce/ gravy as geeli (wet) subji.

Do you ever have a meal with just dry/vegetable and no wet?

Np but yes, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am Indian and I am not offended by Weingarten’s article. The man is entitled to his taste preferences as we all are. Heck, even Indians from one part of the country will knock the cuisine of other states or complain that the food has meat, doesn’t have meat, too much spice, not enough spice…. and so on. Padma Lakshmi does not speak for me.

No one suggests he has to like Indian food. It is his breathtakingly ignorant claim that Indian food is entirely based on a single spice. The food of more than 1 billion people, from a sub-continent, and the very variety of spices that "Western" explorers and conquerors spent centuries seeking.

Well, the Indian food that most Americans have eaten is actually pretty one-dimensional. Case in point - Rasika . Order 5 different curries in Rasika and all the sauces taste the same. In fact, I would say that very few Indians (from India) have been exposed to regional home cooked meals. Unless you are an Indian who lived in a major metropolitan city and had a back-ground where you were in close contact with people from other regions (central govt, defense forces etc) you pretty much ate food cooked in your house or either a Tandoori restaurant (North Indian) or a Dosa place (South Indian).

But, as an Indian-American, I don't care if someone does not like Indian food. I do not like traditional thanksgiving food. It is just that I don't criticize it in front of anyone. Not because it is offensive and bad manners, but, mainly because taste in food is subjective and personal. I truly believe that you should dress for others (ie, ask others about if your dress sense is offensive or graceful) and eat for yourself (ie eat what tastes good to you). As long as Weingarten is dressed well, I don't care what he eats.

Why must white people call Indian dishes curries? I will never understand - are you referring to the various sauces the dishes are cooked in?

That is largely a British thing, not an American thing. Many British people are white, but not all white people are British, or even British origin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indian food is nasty. Everything is soaked in that god awful curry that can’t tell whether you are eating beef or chicken.

You are free to dislike whatever food you dislike, and to announce it however you see fit, even if you end up demonstrating what a self-own is. Go for it.

But that's not a humor column, and it's not edgy or insightful.

Why can’t GW have an opinion too? Why does he have to be edgy and insightful? People are free to “change the channel” on him too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find him a better non-fiction writer than comedian. Fatal Distraction is some of the finest writing out there, IMO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-distraction-forgetting-a-child-in-thebackseat-of-a-car-is-a-horrifying-mistake-is-it-a-crime/2014/06/16/8ae0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html

+1

His nonfiction writing is nuanced. This column isn't, which is why it lands with a thud. Aside from the fact that this isn't really an original, or funny, take.

I haven't read any other non-fiction work by Weingarten, but agree that Fatal Distraction is nuanced and grounded in empathy. I wouldn't say that about his "humor" columns, but I guess, in his words, that makes me a "poopyface". Devastatingly witty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Indian food is nasty. Everything is soaked in that god awful curry that can’t tell whether you are eating beef or chicken.

You are free to dislike whatever food you dislike, and to announce it however you see fit, even if you end up demonstrating what a self-own is. Go for it.

But that's not a humor column, and it's not edgy or insightful.

Why can’t GW have an opinion too? Why does he have to be edgy and insightful? People are free to “change the channel” on him too.

He absolutely can have an opinion, and it doesn't need to be edgy or insightful. And, yes, people are free to "change the channel". That might mean letting the Post know that readers are not interested in or amused by Weingarten's boring curmudgeon schtick. And that's exactly what many posters here are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never get the humor in his articles. That one was particularly unfunny.

Agree with this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I just read the article and it astounds me that this man is paid to write. It is like something from a bad high school newspaper.

Well, being unfunny and/or a subpar writer does NOT equate to being racist and certainly does not require issuing an apology.

Everyone should seriously be worried about free speech. This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never get the humor in his articles. That one was particularly unfunny.

Agree with this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I just read the article and it astounds me that this man is paid to write. It is like something from a bad high school newspaper.

Well, being unfunny and/or a subpar writer does NOT equate to being racist and certainly does not require issuing an apology.

Everyone should seriously be worried about free speech. This is ridiculous.

This, 100%
So much this. People have made jokes about bad British food for decades. It's food, people. There are opinions about food, nuances, recipes, north vs south, veg vs meat. Food is what brings us together. Vive food opinions without taking it personally.

Now sports teams....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never get the humor in his articles. That one was particularly unfunny.

Agree with this. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but I just read the article and it astounds me that this man is paid to write. It is like something from a bad high school newspaper.

Well, being unfunny and/or a subpar writer does NOT equate to being racist and certainly does not require issuing an apology.

Everyone should seriously be worried about free speech. This is ridiculous.

Has a court issued a decree banning Weingarten's column? Didn't think so. So, no, no one should be worried about free speech. The ridiculous thing is to pretend otherwise.

People pay money to read the Washington Post. Those readers are entitled to say that they don't want to read ignorant, uninformed drivel. If Weingarten's "critique" were at least based in fact, then it would likely have received a different response...but it was simultaneously ignorant and offensive, while also drawing upon centuries of racist, reductive tropes. Refusing to hear that and calling anyone who points it out "ridiculous" is what's ridiculous. Would it also be okay for him to compare Beyonce or any other Black musician to a minstrel show?