Miscellaneous desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 24

Indian food

Why is Indian food so spicy compared to most other cultures' food? --99.23.201.132 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Persons in the US who came from India (Gujurati) told me that spices help to mask or delay decomposition of food in a country where refrigeration is scarce, besides being just to make the food taste good. I doubt pepper or other spices would hamper the growth of microorganisms, and making spoiled food taste ok sounds like an unsafe practice. Edison (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually pepper and other spices do inhibit microbial action. (See, for example, this or this source.) However, I would point out that India has no monopoly on spicy food. Food in Thailand is every bit as spicy as Indian food, and some food from Sichuan or Mexico can be fiery, too. Marco polo (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally true that the hotter the climate of a country, the spicier people like their food. Why this is so is unclear; I am skeptical of explanations in terms of decomposition. People who live in tropical climates tend to use meat very quickly after slaughter, and as far as I know they don't use more spices for meat that has been kept around longer. Also, people from India usually have a great liking for the spice asafoetida, which is disliked by many westerners because they perceive it as having a "moldy" quality. (According to our article, "in French it is known (among other names) as merde du diable (devil's shit)"). Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial countries and spicy food does seem to be a trend. I've heard that one reason might be the perspiration caused by spicy foods makes people feel cooler. I don't have a reference for this and my personal experience with spicy foods and hot weather actually leads me to believe the opposite, but I heard it somewhere so it must be true right? --Daniel 01:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't is more likely to be simple historical reasons? All the best spices come from equatorial regions. They used to be expensive to get anywhere else. APL (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the answer. A given cultivar of hot pepper will be much hotter when raised in a hot place than in a cool place, according to Amal Naj's book "Peppers". --Sean 18:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A colleague of mine who's a native of Thailand told me that they make the food spicy to make it "interesting", otherwise people "won't eat". It also makes you perspire, so it might even be seen as having a "cooling" effect somehow. Obviously, that approach is not needed in, say, Scandinavia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the "hot climates eat spicy food" thing, Korean cuisine is known to be quite spicy, see Gochujang, and Korea isn't terribly "tropical". --Jayron32 02:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's an exception. But note that even within China, the cuisine of the southern and western parts is pretty spicy, whereas the cuisine of northern cities such as Beijing is much more bland. Looie496 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is Hungary, but they're renowned for their love of extremely hot peppers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine from Guangdong in China told me that people eat spicy food when they are hot to replace salts lost during sweating. I'm not sure if there's any truth in this, but it does seem (as others have suggested) that the hotter the climate, the hotter the food. The UK's climate is as dull as dishwater, and the rest of Europe would say the same about our food ;) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, there are plenty of hot-climate Latin American countries (not Mexico, obviously) whose food is very bland. I don't think there is too much logic to taste, some people have difficulties with certain foods and its not entirely easy to explain why for some people something can be a delicacy whilst to others its uneatable. Scandinavians like various types of cold fish (such as Gravlax), which many South Asians can't imagine touching. Etc, etc.. --Soman (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't feel cooler after eating spicy foods. I'd go with decomp, as food will rot far quicker at tropical temps. StuRat (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that, or any qualifications in microbiology or culinary sciences, or are you just offering your personal conclusion? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really not know that decomposition occurs more quickly at higher temps, or are you just being difficult ? (Decomp occurs more quickly at high humidity, too, which is also common in the tropics.) StuRat (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that actually makes the causal connection between warmer temperatures (and correspondingly higher rates of decomposition, all other things being equal) and the use of spices in Indian cuisine? Absent any actual research on the topic, all you've presented is your personal best guess about which of the alternate hypotheses on this page you happen to like. You've declared a summary conclusion on the basis of your own intuition.

What you haven't done is offer any sources (credible or otherwise) that permit you to discount the other possible explanations that have been brought forward. Among other things, if decomposition were generally a primary driver for the addition of spices, you'd expect traditional dishes prepared in cooler climes to be spicier in summer than winter. Have you determined whether or not this is the case? (Raw meat doesn't last particularly long in the summer in France.) The 'availability and flavor' hypothesis also seems difficult to dismiss out of hand—spicier cuisines tend to be drawn from parts of the world where the spices are grown and are more readily available; Indians could use spices for the same reason that the Chinese use bamboo shoots. If spices were used solely as a second-rate concealer for decomposition, then we are left wondering how it is that people from cooler countries have so readily and enthusiastically adopted these inferior flavors into their diets. (That isn't to say that there can't be overlap among these factors. Tonic water is perhaps the canonical example of a medicine that people now consume largely for its taste.) Is there some sort of cultural double standard at work here? When white people eat Indian cuisine, it is because it is foreign and flavorful and interesting and exotic and delicious; when Indian people eat Indian cuisine, it is because they're covering up for their substandard and unhygienic food. Indians have mastered pickling and other methods of preserving foods; the presupposition that they must conceal decay through spiciness seems rather threadbare. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect spiciness of foods to vary much by season, as removing spices in winter would make foods taste bland to those accustomed to spiciness.

Do you have proof of your statements:

1) "spicier cuisines tend to be drawn from parts of the world where the spices are grown and are more readily available".

2) "spices were ... a second-rate concealer of decomposition", that is, that they were an inferior method to others employed at the time.

3) "Indians have mastered pickling and other methods of preserving foods" (or rather that these methods were known prior to spices, as it seems unlikely that spices would all be removed from their diet once pickling became available).

Do you have authoritative sources and a degree in the culinary arts, or is this just your own personal opinion ? StuRat (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilful disingenuousness doesn't really help your argument. I'm going to assume that since you still haven't offered any sources support to your original conjecture, you don't have any. It would have been quicker for your to just say so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm going to assume that, since you ask me for sources and qualifications while providing your own unsourced and unqualified opinions, that my initial assessment that you're just trying to be difficult is correct. StuRat (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You offered your own conjecture, presented as the 'correct' answer, based (since we have seen no evidence to the contrary) on your own personal, unqualified intuition. I suggested some points that you might consider or lines of investigation which might tend to support or contradict your conclusion, and asked whether or not you had considered or investigated them. Apparently you had not, and still have not. I'm not passing my unsupported statements off as authoritative, while you are; that's the fundamental difference. I'm encouraging the original poster to think critically about what random strangers on the internet might be telling him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the phrases I started my original sentences with: "I certainly don't feel..." and "I'd go with..." make it quite clear I am offering opinions, while your statements seem to be stated as if they were facts. StuRat (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Indian cuisine, there are quite a few vegetarian cuisine styles known for their heavy use of spices. Decomp could be one of the reasons but it can't be THE reason that Indian food is so spicy. Another relevant article would be Piquance - In Asian countries within the sphere of mainly Chinese, Indian and Japanese cultural influence, it has traditionally been considered a sixth basic taste, so I guess (WP:OR alert) the spiciness is probably due to culture cuisine tradition more then anything. Royor (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian food decomposes, too. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English food used to be spicy, actually. See the history by Colin Spencer. The English used a lot of imported spices - ginger, pepper, galingale - and home-grown hot stuff - horseradish, mustard, garlic. English food got blander in Victorian times, or rather the dishes are made bland but then you can add mustard, gentleman's relish, whatever you like, to spice them up. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd but plenty of people here have called non-spicy food 'bland'. There's a huge amount of flavour in foods that are seasoned with Herbs rather than spices, and even without seasoning most european cuisine i've ever eaten is pretty full of flavour. Semi-rant over ny156uk (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word "bland", meaning how it was in England in the Victorian period, which isn't typical of English food, or European food. Some people actually advocated tasteless food, e.g. the Kelloggs in the USA, who thought it equated with godlessness. And Isabella Beeton's recipes are notorious for long boiling, which removes flavours. But I agree that the English, like other Europeans, and like North Americans, are quite capable of liking flavour in their food. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bit of a fallacy in the initial assumption. While it's true that there are nations in tropical or equatorial areas that love spicy food, it's fair to say that there are more cultures in the area to begin with, if only due to the larger population and it shouldn't be surprising that some love spicy food. When you add in the fact that most spices originate in the warmer climates, it should again not be surprising that the cultures near where the spices developed would have longer cultural traditions of consuming those spices and more fully incorporated them into their diets. It was, after all, only relatively recently that spices could be made affordable to folks in the northern climes - all those voyages of discovery to establish spice trade routes were so profitable due to the huge markup. You might as well ask why tropical fruit isn't used much in northern cuisine - it's not because Swedes and Canadians intrinsically dislike guavas or something, it's just that there's been less opportunity for consumption, experimentation in different meals, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely one of the reasons that south Asian countries traditionally used strongly flavoured spices was simply that they had them. The existence of the Spice trade shows that when Europeans discovered them, they wanted them too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but Chili peppers were brought to India by the Portuguese. Alansplodge (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that part of the point? They were brought to India and other tropical locations to grow. The Europeans could then import them for high prices limiting their use in local cuisine but the locals didn't have to so they had them in abundance along with other spices they already had. Nil Einne (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But chilis grow just fine in northern climates, why would they need to import them? The non-spicy bell version seems to have been more used than the spicier ones in northern cuisines. Rmhermen (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they grow as well though? Particularly the hotter varieties and what was available at the time. (Note also the above answer which suggests the temperature of the location affects the 'hotness' of the chillis which I believe I've read before.) Particularly in the more temperate places like the UK? Okay they may not have had to import them from Asia in any case but other close places. But obviously if you have to cultivate something or import them it's less likely you'll use it then if it's basically growing wild. The presence and availability of other spices to use with the chillis could also make a difference. Of course one of the difficulties is a lot of what we define as a countries food may have a fairly recent connection, chilis are a good example of this, they are common in the cuisine of places like India, Thailand, Malaysia, Korea, parts of China but we know they weren't available until probably the 16th century or may be later. As someone above said, the bland food sometimes associated with England likely comes from victorian times. There are of course so many possibilities many of which we can't know without precisely reproducing conditions of the time as to why chillis (and spices) took off in some places but not so much in others. For example one random possibility is that people in more temperate locations were more uncomfortable with the profuse sweating eating chillis can cause in some people, something people in tropical locations are more likely experience all the time (well not counting those regularly using steambaths). Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i reckon it's because it makes it tasty. Have you tried haggis yet 99.23?Perry-mankster (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Couric's Bio Sketch Incorrect

Katy Couric's entry in Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katie_Couric -- is incorrect. It currently states that her father's alma mater is the University of Virginia. He actually graduated from Mercer University in Macon, GA, in 1941. See:

http://about.mercer.edu/notable-alumni/

http://www.macon.com/2011/06/24/1608048/katie-courics-father-former-middle.html

and

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/16cede5e97a78848/393504aec358c5bd?lnk=raot

Regards -- Ed Sienkiewicz, Lt Col, USAF (Retired); email: (redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.75.168.223 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your information at [1]. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the email address in the original question, as per policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is this door called?

Hello.

What do you call this type of door?

http://img.archiexpo.fr/images_ae/photo-m2/porte-rapide-a-enroulement-439543.jpg

Thanks in advance. Leptictidium (mt) 10:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a roller-shutter door. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 10:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the top half opens upwards and the bottom half downwards. My friend had a van which had rear doors that did that, but I don't know if they have a special name. --TrogWoolley (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a door to an elevator. The shaft for an elevator easily accommodates the sliding of the upper door upwards and the lower door downwards. I think TrogWoolley might be correct about the directionality of the doors.

As you can see, some of these freight elevator doors have that horizontal division in the middle. Bus stop (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the doors aren't opening straight up/down but rather rotating to a horizontal position like a standard garage door (but in two pieces). --Tango (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you type porte rapide a enroulement into google, a series of roll doors appear; it appears as though Finlay McWalter was right all along. --TrogWoolley (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that "porte rapide a enroulement" pretty much translates to "rapid roll door" Worm^TT · (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

enclosed designated smoking areas

So, I was at the Dizengoff Center Mall in Tel Aviv and saw what I describe as a "cancer box" as it is a small air-tight glass enclosure (about 1 metre by 3 metres) meant to keep smokers and their smoke in (thus maximising damage to them and minimising it outside. Does anyone know if other malls in other countries have this sort of thing? By this sort of thing I mean enclosed these smoking spaces of courrse. Seems like an interesting, if slightly cruel, concept. I can post a picture of it if my text description is not enough. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 18:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many airports have "smoking lounges". Some of them look quite nice (except for the smoke.), and some of them look (to me) like the tiny room you describe. However, that's just the impression I got from the outside, I've never been in one. APL (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had that idea myself. They shouldn't even need to bring cigs, as the air is smoke-filled enough even for them. Given the choice of polluting their own air or everybody else's, this seems like the fairer choice, to me. Outside smoking areas don't seem to work, either, as smokers will sneak their cigs in the bathroom when the weather is bad, and, even when they do smoke outside, it still drifts into the building doors and windows and onto the sidewalks and parking lots where those coming and going must breath it. StuRat (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. It's a passive-aggressive protest against the rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I was called up for jury service a few years ago in the main court building in Melbourne, Australia, there was a "room" where all smokers had to go, adjacent to the main area where one waited to be allotted to a case. I believe it was vented to the outdoors, but even non-smokers who went in came out smelling like they had smoked for decades. And, relevant to Stu's comment above, not far away, the Shire of Baw Baw has just banned smoking in outdoor eating areas, malls and children's playgrounds. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually misrepresented the size of the room. Here is the image [2]. Has anyone seen one that small elsewhere? The pic is kind of crummy yes, but it was a cell phone cam. The air being gray in the room is not a trick of the light btw, it actually is gray. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 04:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I have seen them close to that size, but not quite that small. I've seen them as rectangular and about the size of a curbside bus stop. But that's very small. Perhaps they don't really want to encourage smoking, but they give the smokers a place to go if they're really desparate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are trying to force Israeli smokers to be considerate or go elsewhere. Israelis still have this reputation of being somewhat inconsiderate (though when you get to know them, of course, they are the best friends you can have), and I think this is a way of making sure shoppers don't have to breathe their smoke and saying "you really want to take that ciggy elsewhere" Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a gas chamber, and also looks like smoking has stunted the growth of the occupants. StuRat (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known fact that smoking can be Hobbit-forming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's amazing. No chairs. No reading material. No outside view. (They seem to have made a special effort to avoid that.) No anything really. Are they trying to bore the smokers out of their habit? HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed but judiciously avoided the hobbitual joke. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no you didn't! :-) Richard Avery (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I worked briefly for a company in Aberdeen, where the smokers had to use such a 'room' that was outside the building (more like a bus shelter - it wasn't airtight), requiring a short walk in the open air (often damp and cold in Aberdeen) - it still got plenty of use. Mikenorton (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smokers' shelters like that are very common in the UK now that smoking in enclosed workplaces is illegal. --Tango (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's one about that size, or maybe even smaller, in my nearest Irish pub. There's room for a couple of smokers and a small shelf for their beers. I might go and snap a photo later. Astronaut (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such an indoor smoking pit would need exhaust fans to the outside (hopefully far away from anyone), or smoke would pour out whenever the doors are opened. However, there's no way to keep the smokers themselves from stinking up the place, when they exit; with hair, clothes and breath all reeking of tobacco. A long walk to a distant outdoor shelter is the only way to reduce some of that. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not feasible in an international airport where most of the smokers are in transit and are not permitted to exit the ~~airport~~ terminal. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing you mean they aren't allowed to leave the terminal, unless there you call a "terminal" an "airport" (which would make sense if your airports each have one large terminal). StuRat (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your correction of my correction is correct. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like what's called a "smoking cabin". I believe the theory is that the filtration works better because of how the air circulates in the small space. If you google the term there's lots to find including several manufacturers. --JGGardiner (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]