The Pad Thai at Spoon does suck.

Natasha F wrote:The title of this thread is awful. Really, I'm not sure how connecting "ethnic" restaurants with the use of pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients (i.e., with cheapness, lack of sophistication, and just general inferiority) can be anything other than blatantly racist.

Natasha, I agree with some of what you wrote (indeed, I made made some of the same points). But the bit I quoted here is really puzzling. First, ethnicity and race are distinct concepts. But more importantly, the statement "most ethnic restaurants use pre-fab ingredients" might be true or it might be false. But I fail to see how it is evidence of bias against a person's race, ethnicity, etc.

I think the problem is that you say:

But to say "most ethnic restaurants are cheap" -- as if most non-ethnic restaurants are not cheap or are less cheap -- is another (in addition to being demonstrably wrong).

There is no implication that "non-ethnic" (whatever that means) is "not cheap". When I say it's cold in Chicago, that doesn't imply that it is warm outside of Chicago. Similarly, (whether you agree or disagree with him) when Steve says "ethnic restaurants tend to use cheap ingredients", it doesn't imply that non-ethnic restaurants don't use cheap ingredients.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:By the way, there is nothing that stops a traditional Thai restaurant from improving on their Pad Thai by taking a similar approach. But they simply don't have the manpower or will to do it at the price point they sell their food for. Hence the title of this thread.

Natasha - I am not objecting to the type of prasie Spoon gets here. I have added data points to the discussion to try and tether the praise to a practical reality of what is really going on in the Spoon kitchen so people can learn something about what they are eating. Hopefully the next time BR orders a Pad Thai at some tradirional restaurant, he will remember what I wrote and out the dish through a different type of analysis.

And there is nothing that stops a traditional Applebee's from improving their food by taking a similar approach (such as would elevate their food to North Pond level). But they simply don't have the manpower or will to do it at the price point they sell their food for. So why not title the thread "Invisible ceilings at non-ethnic restaurants"?

I don't get that people here are disputing that Spoon uses some pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients, or that Spoon's food would be even better if they used artisanal ingredients, or that they object to your posts regarding Spoon's use of pre-fab ingredients as non-factual. I get that people object to your tone and air of (unfounded) superiority. Not to mention chauvinism (I won't say racism). The thread isn't titled "Invisible ceiling at Spoon?" It's "Invisible ceiling at ethnic restaurants."

Darren72 wrote:

Natasha F wrote:

Natasha, I agree with some of what you wrote (indeed, I made made some of the same points). But the bit I quoted here is really puzzling. First, ethnicity and race are distinct concepts. But more importantly, the statement "most ethnic restaurants use pre-fab ingredients" might be true or it might be false. But I fail to see how it is evidence of bias against a person's race, ethnicity, etc.

I think the problem is that you say:

But to say "most ethnic restaurants are cheap" -- as if most non-ethnic restaurants are not cheap or are less cheap -- is another (in addition to being demonstrably wrong).

There is no implication that "non-ethnic" (whatever that means) is "not cheap". When I say it's cold in Chicago, that doesn't imply that it is warm outside of Chicago. Similarly, (whether you agree or disagree with him) when Steve says "ethnic restaurants tend to use cheap ingredients", it doesn't imply that non-ethnic restaurants don't use cheap ingredients.

I'm probably dating myself here. Do you remember the commercial where a little boy in a rowboat is talking with his grandfather about how his friend called him prejudiced? The grandfather asked him, who? The boy replied, "[So-and-so], my Jewish friend." The grandfather responds, "well, you are prejudiced, otherwise you would have referred to him as your friend, not your Jewish friend."

Actually, someone who says "Chicago is a cold city," much like "ethnic restaurants take shortcuts" is implying that Chicago, compared to other cities in general that are not Chicago, is cold.

[quote="Steve Plotnicki"]Now you know why I can walk to such good taco carts.

The best tacos I have found are at [url]http://tacosmog.com/rev/t/tacomix.html[/url]

They have a brazier that is always split between pieces of brisket and pig's ear. Nothing seperates the two cuts of meat so each one flavors the other. The suedero comes on mini-tortillas so 3 of them cost $5. Great stuff. At night they have a spit cooking al pastor and sometimes I order that but the suedero is really where it;s at. Come to NYC and I will take you on a tour![/quote]

Not to get too off track from this laser-focused discussion, but I have to comment on the oddball taco blog you linked. The authors document a random collection of taquerias from places with a low bar in that regard - eg, Manhattan and Seattle. However, they do seem to have good taste in this cheap ethnic cuisine. Indeed, in a coincidence much stranger than fiction, they somehow stumbled on the La Perla grocery store taqueria in Benton Harbor MI during a cross country trip. This tiny stand is in in the middle of nowhere and mostly serves migrant grape and cherry pickers from southern Mexico. It also serves a few (very few) gringos from Chicago who frequent the beaches and lakes in SW MI. Indeed, just today in the al pastor thread, I declared their outdoor, spit roasted pastor from this past harvest season the best I have had in the US.

They gave it a 98/100 and declared it by far the best they have tried. Now, La Perla is run by simple, uneducated folks serving dirt poor migrant Native American field workers from southern Mexico. I guarantee you that, while the La Perla crew has access to good produce (that part of MI is a Napa like wonderland of produce), they are using the cheapest stuff they can find. These people know how to stretch food and make it taste good. The intellect to do it resides in the collective experience of a million abuelitas stretching back a thousand years.

When the bloggers got to Chicago, they didn't go to GNRs or any other authentic taquerias of note. But they *did* go to the taqueria owned and run by a Michelin-starred serious chef, Paul Kahan, that claims to apply some more sophisticated technique to markedly higher end, fancy pants ingredients. Big Star would seem to be the best example of your "ethnic" restaurant using "French" standards of cooking and ingredients. Big Star scored a respectable 90.

PS, the meat is "suadero". Your guys might spell it wrong.

I can't see myself eating tacos in Manhattan. Anything is possible.

Natasha - There is a specific category of dining that is commonly known as ethnic. What is included in that category is a bit odd because it excludes cultures like French and Italian (except Southern Italian) and most Japanese cuisine. As a practical matter, the term really identifies the cuisines of cultures where poor people immigrated to America. That is why Italian is split in half. Northern Italy is eating truffles while Southern is eating meatballs. If you don't like the term, or think it is too perjorative, I would be happy to call the category something else. But no one has come up with a better term. Trying to conflate it with cheap non-ethnic restaurants only makes the situation worse because it muddies the situation. Where I disagree with you is when you assign motive to my using the term that is simply not there.

You know I recently saw that comedien Toure on Bill Maher and they were talking about the word on the rock at Rick Perry's ranch. Maher was afraid to use the word in the discussion and Toure told him to go ahead because the context of using the word to talk about the wrong that was committed by using it in the first place is a different context than the way the word was used on the rock.

JeffB - I don't know that blog at all. I just Googled for a picture of Taco Mix. And we have some really good Mexican food here because of a large Mexican community that comes from Pueblo.

Darren72 - Carry on

Ah. Anyway, the chance of stumbling on La Perla is about as good as winning the lottery and the bloggers were experienced enough to know a great taco when they tasted it.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Natasha - There is a specific category of dining that is commonly known as ethnic. What is included in that category is a bit odd because it excludes cultures like French and Italian (except Southern Italian) and most Japanese cuisine. As a practical matter, the term really identifies the cuisines of cultures where poor people immigrated to America. That is why Italian is split in half. Northern Italy is eating truffles while Southern is eating meatballs. If you don't like the term, or think it is too perjorative, I would be happy to call the category something else. But no one has come up with a better term. Trying to conflate it with cheap non-ethnic restaurants only makes the situation worse because it muddies the situation. Where I disagree with you is when you assign motive to my using the term that is simply not there.

I don't think the word "ethnic" is pejorative or your use of it is objectionable in itself. It's using that word as a proxy for "cheap" or "inferior" is where the objection lies. Why not call the category under discussion "cheap restaurants?" The title of the thread could be "Invisible ceilings at cheap restaurants," or if you want to be more precise, "Invisible ceilings at restaurants where the average entree is below $10" or whatever. Certainly, a great majority of restaurants run by recent immigrants from Asia, Africa, E. Europe -- as well as mom and pop restaurants of all cultural stripes -- would fall in this category. But at least that fact would then be incidental to your argument vis-a-vis the less-than-ideal use of pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients. As it stands now, the title of the thread suggests a direct cause-and-effect between "ethnic-ness" and inferior ingredients, NOT a connection between specific price point and inferior ingredients. Perhaps the latter point, couched in such fashion, is too mundane and obvious to raise. But the former is blatantly racist. I mean, c'mon, the original discussion was about Spoon, and then you go off on a tangent about Indian restaurants using pre-fab mixes, and from there you say there is some kind of "invisible ceiling" through which "ethnic restaurants" -- as opposed to "cheap ethnic and non-ethnic restaurants," and opposed to just "cheap restaurants" -- have a hard time breaking?

If you indeed harbor no such pernicious attitude, conscious or otherwise, then "Invisible ceiling at cheap restaurants" would be a more accurate evocation of your point. Actually, "Invisible ceiling at Spoon" is more on-point. Really, I just don't get how raising Spoon's "ethnic-ness" per se, and then the repeated focus on ethnic restaurants in general, contributes anything useful or benign to your original point (that original point being -- I think!!! -- that Spoon uses more pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients than one might expect, especially given its popularity).

Lastly: I think there might be a current running through this whole discussion of an attitude among certain people who frequent restaurant boards, who seem to give extra points to a restaurant simply for being "ethnic," regardless of the quality of the individual ingredients. I hinted at this earlier, that maybe this attitude might arise from a "Stuff White People Like" kind of condescension. But it could also be that, in general, Thai cuisine (or the ethnic cuisine of your choice) is just inherently more flavorful than non-ethnic cuisine. And thus a Thai meal can still achieve a level of deliciousness even while using pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients, whereas a non-ethnic meal that relies upon the same quantities of pre-fab, non-artisanal ingredients would be absolute dreck. Seen in that light, one could argue that Thai ("or ethnic") cuisine is superior to non-ethnic cuisine, no?

In fairness to Steve, Natasha, as pointed out above, the current title of the thread was not of his creation, though he is able to change it at any time.

In fairness to me, Steve, I never made any claims about nor defended Spoon anywhere in this thread. My own recent experience there has been highly inconsistent. My participation was limited to the fact that you have made sweeping, dismissive remarks -- stating them as fact -- regarding many cuisines about which you appear to have very little actual knowledge.

I don't care to pursue that discussion further for the reasons I noted above. But I felt neither of us should be misrepresented on these points, and I thank you for the conversation.

Natasha F wrote: As it stands now, the title of the thread suggests a direct cause-and-effect between "ethnic-ness" and inferior ingredients, NOT a connection between specific price point and inferior ingredients.

The reason that the category is called ethnic, and not just cheap eats, is that it is used to describe food brought by immiigrants to this country. To show you how strong a concept that is, that is why we in the U.S. have neighborhoods called Chinatown, Japantown, Greektown, German Village, Thai Town, Little Tokyo, Little Italy etc. What we don't have in this country are neighborhoods called Little White Trash Town or Bumpkinville. That's because White Trash and Bumpkins do not make the same type of cultural contribution to society as ethnic groups do. Etnic groups are singularly unique.

Any of the above terms are perjorative. But it's not the same level of perjorative term as say N word. In fact ethnic groups use these terms to market themselves. It's a unique aspect of American capitalism. Minorities are happy to identify themselves as different, and they utilize the money they earn from that difference to climb up the social ladder. Then they take the money they earned from doing that and send their kids to Harvard to become investment bankers and doctors. I know from experience that this aspect of immigrant life is not available to ethnic groups in other countries to the same extent as it is in the country.

I agree with your last paragraph, But then again, what you have described is part of the unique contribution I am talking about.

Dom - Talk about broad sweeping remarks!

Look as far as I'm coincerned, unless a culture has created a high cuisine, it's cuisine is inferior to those cultures who have created one. So say what you want about Thai, Indian, Mexican etc., they are not high cuisines. So as to your point., I know very little about West African food, but I know enough about food to tell you that Yassa is not high cuisine. Nor is cous cous, which happens to be something I enjoy eating very much.

Just to clarify please, what cuisines do you consider "High" ? You mentioned several, I'd just like to know which ones are high and by extension, which ones are low.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Natasha F wrote: As it stands now, the title of the thread suggests a direct cause-and-effect between "ethnic-ness" and inferior ingredients, NOT a connection between specific price point and inferior ingredients.

The reason that the category is called ethnic, and not just cheap eats, is that it is used to describe food brought by immiigrants to this country. To show you how strong a concept that is, that is why we in the U.S. have neighborhoods called Chinatown, Japantown, Greektown, German Village, Thai Town, Little Tokyo, Little Italy etc. What we don't have in this country are neighborhoods called Little White Trash Town or Bumpkinville. That's because White Trash and Bumpkins do not make the same type of cultural contribution to society as ethnic groups do. Etnic groups are singularly unique.

Look as far as I'm coincerned, unless a culture has created a high cuisine, it's cuisine is inferior to those cultures who have created one. So say what you want about Thai, Indian, Mexican etc., they are not high cuisines. So as to your point., I know very little about West African food, but I know enough about food to tell you that Yassa is not high cuisine. Nor is cous cous, which happens to be something I enjoy eating very much.

Again, I don't think "ethnic" is a dirty word, nor do I think that uttering that word by itself is offensive. The idea of "ethnic restaurant" as a category is not offensive. What I object to is using that word as a proxy -- which you seem to be doing -- for "cheap," lacking in sophistication, or general inferiority, as compared to that which is not ethnic.

If I were to use the phrase "Italian restaurants" -- a recognized category of restaurant, inoffensive in and of itself -- but then titled a thread "Rat droppings at Italian restaurants?" when discussing one incident of unhygenic conditions at a restaurant that served Italian food, wouldn't you think that title, on its face, is offensive towards Italians? (Regardless of any claim of mine that I am personally the least anti-Italian person you could meet?)

So anyway. So is Chinese high cuisine? Or is it "ethnic"?

French haute cuisine, Japanese omakase and kaiseki and molecular gastronomy are the only ones I can think of. But because of the way those techniques and theories have been applied you nowhave haute Danish (Noma,) Dutch (Oud Sluis), Belgian (In de Wulf,) Italian (Combal.Zero) and American (Alinea) etc. I haven't seen anyone apply these concepts to Chinese food although it might exist in Hong Kong. As far as traditional cuisine go, you thave some court cuisines that differentiate themselves from home cooking like Moghul Indian, some parts of Chinese, Moroccan and we can probably come up with others. Then you have home cooking.

What differentiates the categories is the level of training the chefs have to undergo to practice it correctly, as well as the command of culinary theory that the chef has at his disposal. Regardless of whether you like the food at Next, when Grant and Dave decide to prepare a Thai menu, they know enough about culinary theory to break the food down so they can come up with a strategiy of how to do it. But if we took the chef at Spoon and told him to make a Thai version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, he wouldn't know where to start because he wouldn't have the analytical skill to break it down properly.

Natasha - I don't know how to respond to your post because the connotation of saying Chinatown is that the things there will be cheap and ethnic.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:French haute cuisine, Japanese omakase and kaiseki and molecular gastronomy are the only ones I can think of. But because of the way those techniques and theories have been applied you nowhave haute Danish (Noma,) Dutch (Oud Sluis), Belgian (In de Wulf,) Italian (Combal.Zero) and American (Alinea) etc. I haven't seen anyone apply these concepts to Chinese food although it might exist in Hong Kong. As far as traditional cuisine go, you thave some court cuisines that differentiate themselves from home cooking like Moghul Indian, some parts of Chinese, Moroccan and we can probably come up with others. Then you have home cooking.

I take it you were answering Octarine's question regarding which cuisines you consider "high." Let me ask for a clarification. It is clear that you consider French, Japanese (omakase and kaiseki) and molecular gastronomy "high cuisine." OK. But as to the second sentence of your reply, are you saying that Danish, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and American cuisines have also now earned the label "high cuisine"? Or are you just saying that Danish, Dutch, Belgian, etc. cuisine become "high" only as executed by those particular restaurants, and that the general category of Danish, Dutch, Belgian, etc. should not be considered high cuisine?

What do you think of Brazilian cuisine as executed by D.O.M. of Sao Paolo? Or Mexican cuisine as executed by Biko of Mexico City (or for that matter by Topolobampo of Chicago)? You have declared that Thai is not high cuisine. But how about as it is executed by Arun Sampanthavivat of Chicago?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:What differentiates the categories is the level of training the chefs have to undergo to practice it correctly, as well as the command of culinary theory that the chef has at his disposal. Regardless of whether you like the food at Next, when Grant and Dave decide to prepare a Thai menu, they know enough about culinary theory to break the food down so they can come up with a strategiy of how to do it. But if we took the chef at Spoon and told him to make a Thai version of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, he wouldn't know where to start because he wouldn't have the analytical skill to break it down properly.

Oh. So are you saying that Thai cuisine IS high cuisine after all, as proven to you by your experience at Next? If so, you are contradicting yourself! Or are you saying Thai cuisine is high only in the hands of Grant Achatz & Co. (and not, say, in the hands of the un-analytical Mr. Sampanthavivat, nevermind the chef at Spoon, who, as nobody disputes, has never claimed that his food is theory-laden, stratosphere-priced fine dining)?

BTW, I take it that you wouldn't raise an eyebrow if I were to start a thread entitled "Re-used bread baskets at Jewish delis," which would originate in an actual instance of re-used leftovers at a restaurant serving Jewish cuisine.

Natasha - You are trying to be too literal. Because the words and categories that have been created are imperfect, that doesn't mean that they aren't valid. We are having a casual conversation using language that other food lovers should be able to understand. For example, if I were talking to someone who practices fine dining and I mentioned Swedish cuisine to him, he would immediately think I was talking about Mathias Dahlgren, Faviken, Oaxen etc. He would not think I am talking about going to eat Swedish pancakes. But if I told him I was going to have a Mexican meal, he would not immediately think I was going to Biko. That's because Biko is a one off and there is no serious modern Mexican cuisine movement to speak of. Same with Thai, Indian, Chinese and the others.

I have not been to Biko or DOM and I don't really know much about those restaurants. What I can tell you is the following. I am in touch with a rather large network of people who travel all over thw world for fine dining and I don't know of a single person who has made it their business to go to either Mexico or Brazil. I did recently speak to a chef who was going to Mexico City but I can't remember who it is.

As for kosher delis, I am petty expert on them as my father owned a kosher butcher shop so I know pretty much everything there is to know. Nobody is down on kosher food, and kosher custom, more than I am. So if you would like to start a thread like that be my guest. But having said that, I enjoy kosher style delicatessen. And while I love eating a pastrami sandwich at Katz's, I realize that the meat they use is standard quality and not up to the more artisanal quality meat they use at Mile End. This might surprise you but, I like the cheaper meat more. That is a function of how I calibrate my expectations when I want a deli sandwich.

Steve, thanks for your response.

I do think, however, that a thread titled and inquiring into "Re-used bread baskets at Jewish delis?" is as unnecessarily objectionable and insensitive as "Invisible ceilings at ethnic restaurants."

As for your friends who don't make it a point to travel to Mexico -- it's probably their loss.

From the Wall Street Journal:

The World's Greatest Food City? With delicious food from markets to top restaurants, Mexico City is a contender

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123215425094092359.html

I don't think that thread title would be insensitive at all. The title isn't directed at Jews, it is directed at a category of restaurant that happens to be run by Jews. I don't understand why you can't understand the difference.

I'm sure Mexico City has a fine market. I would enjoy spending the morning there.

[oops. deleted.]

The only way it would bother me is if you started it to take a swipe at Jews, then I would care. Your motives would dictate how I feel about it.

You know kosher delicatessens are covered within the title of this thread. So are Israeli falafal and hummus joints. Have you seen me complain that they are included?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I don't think that thread title would be insensitive at all. The title isn't directed at Jews, it is directed at a category of restaurant that happens to be run by Jews. I don't understand why you can't understand the difference.

Ummm, oookay. So if I were to start a discussion, based (and extrapolated) on actual & factual, oh-so-personal experience, titled "Kosher Restaurants Re-Use Bread Baskets," or "Kosher Restaurants Short-Change Customers and Act Like It's An Honest Mistake When Caught," you wouldn't find that phraseology offensive or insensitive in the least -- ethnically, racially, or religiously -- at all? You're saying you would accept at face value (from the protestations of the author that s/he is the least prejudiced person you'll ever meet) that it's merely a criticism directed at "a category of restaurant that happens to be run by Jews," and not at Jews for being, well, Jews? And that it would be over-sensitive for anyone to posit that such phraseology suggests anti-Semitism?

Hey, how many Kosher restaurants do you know of that happen to be run by folks that are NOT Jews? Let me guess: Zero.

If you do (sincerely) feel the above is benign and should reasonably be perceived as benign, then here's a nugget of reality that will help you in your future interactions with other members of the human species: IT'S NOT. The above thread titles are offensive and insensitive In the way that "Invisible ceilings" or "ethnic restaurants use shortcuts" are insensitive. I don't understand why you can't understand.

In fairness to Steve, I too am completely baffled by this whole thing.

If an acquaintance said he was going out for Mexican food, yeah, I would think he was going for tacos before I would think he was going to Biko. If he said he was going out for Italian, I would think he was going for pasta and tomato sauce before I would think he was going for [whatever restaurant in Italy is being proclaimed as the finest in Italian dining by those who proclaim such things].

If that acquaintance said he was going for Danish or Belgian or Dutch food, I would think, "What the ...? I didn't know there was such a thing. Exactly what thousands-year-old traditions do such cuisines come from?" The fact that Steve cites fine-dining restaurants that serve super-refined renditions of Danish, Belgian, Dutch, etc. food in his discussion of "high cuisine," while excluding Thai cuisine as executed in excellent manner (by his own admission) by the chefs at Next, speaks volumes to me.

Just saying.

Unconscious racism. Think about it.

Please spare me. If anyone is in a position to lecture me about being insensitive I assure you it isn't you.

My father was a Holocaust survivor from a small town in Poland. His entire family was killed in Treblinka and he was the only member that escaped. In order to survive he lived in the woods on the border of Russia and Poland for three years until the war ended. He was shot twice, and when he went back to his town after the war he found that his home was taken over by Polish people and he couldn't get it back. He walked in the door of his house and they were wearing the clothing he left behind when he fled. So if anyone is tuned into to statements about ethnicities that might be insensitive it is me. But I have no problem with you or anyone else calling Jewish food ethnic food, or saying it is cheap or unsophisticated because in a discussion about food, people are not being perjorative when they discuss it that way. They are merely trying to state a fact.

After I hit submit I read your last post and you are either being silly or maybe you're drunk. Read my post. I said IF I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO PRACTICED FINE DINING AS A HOBBY. We would be like-minded on these topics and saying French cuisine or Dutch cuisine would have a secondary meaning based on the culinary attributes of the cuisine. It has nothing to do with race. Having said that for the second time can we please move on? your position is far too relatavist for me because you aren't willing to consider motive or context when these terms are used so I don't see what we can gain from continuing this aspect of the thread.

Ok, it's time to lock this thread.

Have a nice week, everyone.

Thanks,

=R=
for the moderators