While everything you said is valid, sometimes that question is pure curiosity. "Because i want to" is completely valid, though I'd love to know what the inspiration for that desire was. Did you hear a really cool battle song? Some orchestral piece that sounded great? A friend recommended it? Couldn't find an ocarina? Jamming to some folk metal?
I swear I'm inquisitive!
Right, totally agree. Hopefully it doesn't seem like i would remotely disagree with that. Although I'm not aware that he shot anyone, i did infer that it's a crazy overreaction nonetheless. But everyone seems to be focused on him being afraid of the child, when i don't think that's quite accurate.
That doesn't make him smart or correct. He's still crazy.
Wasn't there some series of news reports about scams involving children pretending to be lost, but there was some person nearby waiting to jump you?
I'm not sure if those reports were accurate but i remember hearing about the scam and there being some fear around it. I would like to imagine there's the possibility of this individual overreacting to such reports, and maybe they aren't legitimately afraid of a six year old, but i don't actually know that to be the case.
Edit:
Talking about stuff like this (link below). Again, not saying that the individual was right, but sometimes people read a report and go crazy over It
https://www.koat.com/article/child-s-knock-on-the-door-a-scam-police-say/5052832
While i can agree that this encounter needs some work (would've been cool if the dragon could try to persuade you to mess with the required NPC), but i don't know if it's significant enough of an interaction to call a true fumble. Larian also isn't above going in and fixing things or making things better, as they're continuously adding and improving content.
Also, from my perspective, this game is supposed to be a baldurs gate storyline, not D&D 5e, the motion picture the video game. So for me, i was really glad to see them going hard into the lore, and this one felt pretty good to me.
Yeah man i don't think you're following me at all. I'll give my bottom line up front: I'm not criticizing food culture in the US, I'm retelling the perspective about American food identity that was reflected in the docuseries. I agree that there is a wide diversity of good food in the US. That's not the discussion here.
I'm completely aware that foreign cuisine in the USA is culinarily distinct from their home countries. Legitimate Chinese restaurants don't serve general tsos chicken, and legitimate Mexican restaurants don't serve tex mex.
But they're also not identifiably "American cuisine." Your additional point doesn't seem relevant. New imported items? So like how tomatoes are ubiquitous in italian cuisine but come from the new world? I'm not sure what the messaging is here.
I understand there are regional differences. Not arguing that point either. It's also not MY point at all, i was, again, retelling the point in the episode of the documentary chef's table that i found very interesting. Besides, most regional differences are a specific dish (philly cheese steak, chicago style pizza, etc). Those aren't entire cuisines, they're a single dish. I don't think chili in and of itself defines an entire culinary experience, even though various regions of the US are extremely particular about what even constitutes chili.
Speaking of regional differences, look at india for an example. It's 1/3 the size of the US, but has multiple identifiable regional cuisines, while also having an overall "indian" cuisine. Goa in particular has a pretty distinct cuisine compared to northern India. But we're not discussing chinese food or Mexican food in india, because that's not really relevant.
Respectfully, i believe i understand your point, but you're not understanding mine. I like to think that i understand food culture better than the credit you're giving me. I am in no way suggesting that the US has no food culture. I'm trying to state that the documentary episode made has a chef who shared the perspective that there's no such thing as authentic "American" cuisine.
Hope you have a great day.
Right, but that was the point of the episode of the documentary. At a basic level, American cuisine is based on plentiful food sources, and we get things like burgers and hotdogs. I recommend watching it, it was quite interesting. I'm not trying to suggest that this is the only explanation, but it was an interesting theory nonetheless.
Sure, some regions have some variety (as you mention, a casserole). Size is a factor, but similarly maybe countries have some form of culinary identity (russian, chinese, brazilian). They have sub cultures as well. I'm not well versed in them, to be honest, but i know they exist.
It was an interesting point that i found to be somewhat profound especially as i explored other cuisines, which are typically developed during hardship.
Yeah that's fair, but in some ways other young countries have their own distinctive cuisines that are popular, such as Mexico and Peru. Additionally, i don't think the blend of other cultures is really the problem in having an identity. Other countries have plenty of immigrant populations, but they still have their own identity. For example, turkish doner is huge in Germany, but German cuisine is very much its own thing. Then you can even dial it in even further, looking at bavarian, franconian, swabian, etc.
I don't think i made my point clearly enough. I get that there are regionally distinct cuisines such as cajun cuisine, but my point was that this occurs even in smaller countries and locations such as the UK, which has numerous culinarily distinct cultures despite being a fraction of the size of the US. I'm not sure why you're completely ignoring my point there. I'm also not sure how highlighting Americanized versions of other cuisines is relevant at all. I understand that other cuisines coexist inside of the US, but they are not actually US cuisines. Are you suggesting that Mexican food existing in California or the midwest is one possible definition of US cuisine? Because this actually feeds into the point that American cuisine doesn't really have its own distinction.
I'll try using Germany as an example. German food has an identity, wurst, schnitzel, etc. sometimes it's borrowed (wiener schnitzel from vienna), sometimes its distinctly German. But Germany also has various regions with their own distinctive cuisines (former independent states like bavaria, swabia, franconia, hesse, etc each with their own cuisine). This would be like cajun is in the US. On top of that, there's plenty of transplant cuisines, such as Turkish doner which is quite popular. This would be like mexican food in California. Yet, german cuisine is still able to stand out as its own thing.
I also completely disagree, North African cuisine as an example absolutely has some level of shared culture. Sure, Morocco and Libya have different cuisines for example, but they sit on the southern Mediterranean and share spices, vegetables, etc, and have a shared history.
I understand that I'm not a food expert and I'm citing a documentary about food experts that was interesting. I'm not certain why this feels like an attack. Additionally, that doesn't mean it's my only source of information.
I typically don't watch documentaries, and I watched the entire series. It's pretty well done!
Each episode follows one world renowned chef and their personal history, their food journey, their take on food in general, and where they are now. The first episode was an Italian chef who tried to bring home cooking to restaurants in Italy and was met with backlash by the community (you can't monetize Mom's home cooking). The second one was about a highly regarded chef who moved to Argentina to cook for a remote village and that's pretty much it (as far as i recall) because it was way less stressful cooking a whole pig underground than running a 3 Michelin star French restaurant.
Fascinating stuff.
I think they would identify as more as their own regional cuisine, as opposed to being a part of some larger US identity. I think this would be similar to understanding of french or italian cuisine, but then if you dig into specific regions you'll get "tuscan" as opposed to prototypical "italian." That nuance for "US cuisine" is not as well defined because it doesn't exist in the same way, even though regional cuisines are totally distinct in their own way.
I used the UK as an example because they have distinct regional cuisines like Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Yorkshire, etc, even though it is geographically quite small. To me, that defies the logic that the US can't have a more distinct food identity but then also coexist with various subcultures across a larger geographic area.
Lol fair. Though I don't mean to suggest that there is no hardship anywhere in the US (i think that's why chicken wings became popular), but across the board, food has historically been more easily accessible in the US than most nations than pre existed it. Sure there are some regional delicacies, but no true US cuisine. I'm sure that could be partially explained by the geographic size as well, but there are some distinct differences in UK cuisine even though those cultures are significantly closer.
That's fair, though I might possibly (albeit unlikely) respond that way, but the reaction would be more in surprise as opposed to disdain.
Perhaps I already played the flute and the individual jokingly gave me a hard time over it, now they're playing the flute? Why!? You're one of us now!