If by common knowledge, you mean that a significant portion of the population believes it, I’m not sure how reliable that evidence that is. People will believe a whole lot of strange stuff.
On topic, even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page states that it was “popularized by cooks from India living in Great Britain”. Regardless of where it was first created, this is clearly the product of Indian immigrants. I don’t believe their heritage should be ignored just because they moved. Although, I don’t want it to sound like I believe in a 100% black and white distinction here. It’s clearly a fusion dish with British influences. The original chicken tikka was a lot dryer and the “masala” sauce was added to make the dish creamier to appeal to British tastes.
However, I don’t go around claiming General Tso’s chicken isn’t Chinese food, just because it was first made in New York; or that the chimichanga isn’t Mexican food, just because it was originally made in Arizona; or that a Cuban sandwich isn’t Cuban, just because it was first made in Florida. These dishes wouldn’t exist without the immigrants who modified their cultural recipes to adapt to a new environment.
To me, chicken tikka malala is an Indian dish with British influences.
So let’s agree that it’s neither Indian nor British, but a fusion of the two, created in Britain by immigrants or their descendants and becoming a national dish loved by people in Britain regardless of their cultural background.
How could you think this possibly warrants a dare? Do you really think people are this confrontational in real life? When traveling in other countries, I have only had positive interactions when attempting to find any common ground with locals. In this case, the worst thing that could happen is you share a laugh and they offer for you to try real local cuisine.
Kind of related, the duck tongue and chicken’s foot I had earlier this year in Malaysia wasn’t that bad.
If by common knowledge, you mean that a significant portion of the population believes it, I’m not sure how reliable that evidence that is. People will believe a whole lot of strange stuff.
On topic, even the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page states that it was “popularized by cooks from India living in Great Britain”. Regardless of where it was first created, this is clearly the product of Indian immigrants. I don’t believe their heritage should be ignored just because they moved. Although, I don’t want it to sound like I believe in a 100% black and white distinction here. It’s clearly a fusion dish with British influences. The original chicken tikka was a lot dryer and the “masala” sauce was added to make the dish creamier to appeal to British tastes.
However, I don’t go around claiming General Tso’s chicken isn’t Chinese food, just because it was first made in New York; or that the chimichanga isn’t Mexican food, just because it was originally made in Arizona; or that a Cuban sandwich isn’t Cuban, just because it was first made in Florida. These dishes wouldn’t exist without the immigrants who modified their cultural recipes to adapt to a new environment.
To me, chicken tikka malala is an Indian dish with British influences.
E: Tao to Tso.
So let’s agree that it’s neither Indian nor British, but a fusion of the two, created in Britain by immigrants or their descendants and becoming a national dish loved by people in Britain regardless of their cultural background.
Go to China and tell them that General Tso’s is Chinese cuisine, I dare you.
“I dare you”
How could you think this possibly warrants a dare? Do you really think people are this confrontational in real life? When traveling in other countries, I have only had positive interactions when attempting to find any common ground with locals. In this case, the worst thing that could happen is you share a laugh and they offer for you to try real local cuisine.
Kind of related, the duck tongue and chicken’s foot I had earlier this year in Malaysia wasn’t that bad.