The Sandwich Alignment Chart
- Thread starter CzechCzar
- Start date
From left to right, top to bottom, I'm onboard with 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The hot dog and after? Nope. Not sandwiches.
I am ok with 1, 2, and 4. I am pondering 3. I am more of a Mexican food purist. I am not sure one of those crunchy Taco Bell things is really a taco, and burritos just aren't Mexican food. I eat both but just think of them as American fast food creations. I am so glad it's Taco Tuesday.
Well, I guess I'm officially an iconoclast. But then I also prefer slant razors.
I have one quibble, however: a single poptart is NOT a sandwich. Stick two of them frosting sides together; NOW you've got a sandwich.
O.H.
I have one quibble, however: a single poptart is NOT a sandwich. Stick two of them frosting sides together; NOW you've got a sandwich.
O.H.
I had trouble with 3 at first, then I remembered
You CAN have a hot dog sandwich, but it requires 2 hot dogs, sliced lengthwise, and laid out side by side on bread.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #6
CzechCzar
Use the Fat, Luke!
I will be a curmudgeon. The viewpoints expressed thus far are heretical. Anything other than 1 and 4 is not a sandwich.
| 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 4 | 5 | 6 |
| 7 | 8 | 9 |
No matter how I make a sandwich,
I've noticed that every sandwich which I have made for myself
is always perfect.
I've noticed that every sandwich which I have made for myself
is always perfect.
I, too, thought of ice cream sandwiches. Have you ever added a topping or condiment to one? Could you?
Today's hang sandwich was soooooo good.
I roast a pork shoulder on my Big Green Egg for 6 or 7 hours.. slow smoked at 275F... Pulled pork on a bun.... add whatever you want to it... BBQ sauce, coleslaw (it's always on hand in case anyone wants it) any other condiments.. For me, "that's" a sandwich I enjoy. Especially when we buy the local Publix French bakery buns. You know... the buns with a hard buttery crust and soft, soft, soft bread in the middle. But the pulled pork will work with just about any bread choices you could make.
This also works with slow roasted brisket. <eg>
This also works with slow roasted brisket. <eg>
I suppose you could, but to me that takes it out of the realm of "sandwich", as toppings always go inside the sandwich, not the outside. Getting an Ice Cream sandwich apart to add toppings would be difficult at best I think.
Further to my supposition that an Ice Cream Sandwich is a sandwich is that the outer layers on an Ice Cream Sandwich are made with the primary ingredient being a grain.
There is bread made from wheat, oats, barley, rye, and other grains. An Ice Cream Sandwich has "bread" because the outer layers are made of grain as any other bread is, leavened or not.
You can't say that meat is a requirement to be a sandwich, because a "tomato sandwich" is an accepted sandwich.
A "cheese sandwich" is an accepted sandwich where the filling is made of a dairy product. So is Ice Cream.
A traditional Hot Dog served on a bun is not a sandwich. A hot dog is called a hot dog whether it is on a bun or alone. The bread is irrelevant, therefore - it is not a sandwich.
Last edited:
I agree. A "sandwich" has to be bread either side of a filling. My preference is something porky, but anything is ok, even sweet like PBJ (yes, we do that in UK sometimes!). A wrap is a wrap, a burrito is a buritto, but they are not sandwiches. To the supposition that one can have an ice cream sandwich, I would advise that here on Orchard Road a number of hand cart vendors do indeed sell a block of ice cream squeezed into a slice of white bread.
On the subject of the UK, we could easily have another thread on barms, baps, bread rolls and cobs, all actually the same thing but depending on where it is being eaten can be called any one of those names.
I'm firmly in the camp that everything other than the bottom row is a sandwich. That said, I'm open to the possibility that those in the bottom row can also be sandwiches.
For those who disagree about the hot dog, what happens if the bun is split fully in half lengthwise? What if the hot dog is turned 90° so that the bread is on the top and bottom?
Also, where do open faced sandwiches fit in this discussion?
From my understanding of the history of the burrito, it originated in Mexico. That being the case, why wouldn't it be considered Mexican food? While the Mission burrito originated in San Francisco's Mission district, that's not the only burrito out there. That said, IIRC, the Mission burrito was created by a Mexican immigrant family and sold primarily to customers of their meat market (most likely to other Mexican immigrants). If the inventor and the original customer base were Mexican emigres, wouldn't the food item also be Mexican?
I admit I am very much against the idea of culturally authentic food. Usually, the authenticity gatekeepers are not people from the culture, but rather self-ordained experts on the food of another culture based solely on the fact that they "discovered" it. Meanwhile, these Johnny Come Latelys conveniently forget that there are entire populations of people from that culture who grew up eating the food they have now labeled "inauthentic." Moreover, these gatekeepers are only familiar, at best, with one or two regional styles of the cuisines on which they purport to be experts.
More importantly, though, they forget the greatest truism about food: food is never static in any culture (let alone one at the crossroads of various cultures). Food always evolves. Often, new ingredients are cooked using traditional cultural methods, resulting in a new food. Sometimes old ingredients are cooked using new techniques. This doesn't mean the new food isn't culturally authentic. It just means it's new.
Labeling new food "inauthentic" requires the belief that food culture is does not evolve. It insists that only food from a certain place in a certain time can be "authentic." That's like taking a photo of a city and saying any other photo of that city taken at a different location or at a different time is not an authentic picture of the city.
That said, Taco Bell and its ilk are entirely inauthentic Mexican food. While I don't pretend to be an expert on Mexican food by any stretch of the imagination, I do know that Taco Bell was started by a white (read: non-Mexican) guy in California who tried to recreate the food he had at a local Mexican restaurant despite the fact that he never learned any traditional cooking techniques nor trained under any Mexican cooks. At best, it's American food inspired by Mexican food.
On the other hand, there's Panda Express. Given my previous comment, it would seem I would automatically consider it to be authentic Chinese food. Yet, I hesitate to do so. I'm not familiar with Panda Express's cooking techniques, so I can't speak to whether the techniques are traditionally Chinese. What (I think) I know is the the original cooks were Chinese immigrants but the food was not really intended for other Chinese immigrants. Instead, the food was designed to appeal to an American palate. As such, it may be an early example of "fusion" cooking, possibly as Americanized Chinese food. In that sense, if nothing else, it is still Chinese food.
Panda Express is not alone in this. Up until (maybe) 20 years ago, except for areas with high populations of Chinese immigrants (and/or subsequent generations of Americans of Chinese descent) most Chinese restaurants in the US had to change their recipes to appeal to the American palate. It's why such dishes as chop suey, egg foo young, and the Saint Paul sandwich exist. Again, these aren't necessarily inauthentic Chinese food dishes; they're examples of early fusion cuisine. They applied traditional Chinese cooking techniques to new ingredients to cater to an American/westernized palate.
Meanwhile, Chinese restaurants in areas with large Chinese populations could (and often did) serve Chinese food that had not been adjusted to please American tastes. Still, they would often incorporate ingredients foreign to their counterparts in China (as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.) but common in the US. This explains how dishes like broccoli beef; eggs and shrimp; and tomatoes and beef came to exist.
The thing is, these practices weren't limited to restaurants. Home cooks also adapted their recipes to use locally available ingredients, even while practicing traditional Chinese cooking techniques. So while some people may claim broccoli beef (or beef and broccoli), tomato and eggs, and many other dishes aren't authentic Chinese, there are generations of Chinese Americans who grew up eating and enjoying them as part of their traditional Chinese food culture.
For those who disagree about the hot dog, what happens if the bun is split fully in half lengthwise? What if the hot dog is turned 90° so that the bread is on the top and bottom?
Also, where do open faced sandwiches fit in this discussion?
Food authenticity is a whole other discussion.
From my understanding of the history of the burrito, it originated in Mexico. That being the case, why wouldn't it be considered Mexican food? While the Mission burrito originated in San Francisco's Mission district, that's not the only burrito out there. That said, IIRC, the Mission burrito was created by a Mexican immigrant family and sold primarily to customers of their meat market (most likely to other Mexican immigrants). If the inventor and the original customer base were Mexican emigres, wouldn't the food item also be Mexican?
I admit I am very much against the idea of culturally authentic food. Usually, the authenticity gatekeepers are not people from the culture, but rather self-ordained experts on the food of another culture based solely on the fact that they "discovered" it. Meanwhile, these Johnny Come Latelys conveniently forget that there are entire populations of people from that culture who grew up eating the food they have now labeled "inauthentic." Moreover, these gatekeepers are only familiar, at best, with one or two regional styles of the cuisines on which they purport to be experts.
More importantly, though, they forget the greatest truism about food: food is never static in any culture (let alone one at the crossroads of various cultures). Food always evolves. Often, new ingredients are cooked using traditional cultural methods, resulting in a new food. Sometimes old ingredients are cooked using new techniques. This doesn't mean the new food isn't culturally authentic. It just means it's new.
Labeling new food "inauthentic" requires the belief that food culture is does not evolve. It insists that only food from a certain place in a certain time can be "authentic." That's like taking a photo of a city and saying any other photo of that city taken at a different location or at a different time is not an authentic picture of the city.
That said, Taco Bell and its ilk are entirely inauthentic Mexican food. While I don't pretend to be an expert on Mexican food by any stretch of the imagination, I do know that Taco Bell was started by a white (read: non-Mexican) guy in California who tried to recreate the food he had at a local Mexican restaurant despite the fact that he never learned any traditional cooking techniques nor trained under any Mexican cooks. At best, it's American food inspired by Mexican food.
On the other hand, there's Panda Express. Given my previous comment, it would seem I would automatically consider it to be authentic Chinese food. Yet, I hesitate to do so. I'm not familiar with Panda Express's cooking techniques, so I can't speak to whether the techniques are traditionally Chinese. What (I think) I know is the the original cooks were Chinese immigrants but the food was not really intended for other Chinese immigrants. Instead, the food was designed to appeal to an American palate. As such, it may be an early example of "fusion" cooking, possibly as Americanized Chinese food. In that sense, if nothing else, it is still Chinese food.
Panda Express is not alone in this. Up until (maybe) 20 years ago, except for areas with high populations of Chinese immigrants (and/or subsequent generations of Americans of Chinese descent) most Chinese restaurants in the US had to change their recipes to appeal to the American palate. It's why such dishes as chop suey, egg foo young, and the Saint Paul sandwich exist. Again, these aren't necessarily inauthentic Chinese food dishes; they're examples of early fusion cuisine. They applied traditional Chinese cooking techniques to new ingredients to cater to an American/westernized palate.
Meanwhile, Chinese restaurants in areas with large Chinese populations could (and often did) serve Chinese food that had not been adjusted to please American tastes. Still, they would often incorporate ingredients foreign to their counterparts in China (as well as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.) but common in the US. This explains how dishes like broccoli beef; eggs and shrimp; and tomatoes and beef came to exist.
The thing is, these practices weren't limited to restaurants. Home cooks also adapted their recipes to use locally available ingredients, even while practicing traditional Chinese cooking techniques. So while some people may claim broccoli beef (or beef and broccoli), tomato and eggs, and many other dishes aren't authentic Chinese, there are generations of Chinese Americans who grew up eating and enjoying them as part of their traditional Chinese food culture.
The oldest form of cooking was making broths and stews.
All food is basically soups with differing levels of organization/entropy where soups are most entropic. At one time I thought things could be divided into sandwiches and salads but came to realize salads are just disorganized sandwiches and could be considered organized cold soups. I am a soup monoist and cannot be swayed. I have also read too much philosophy and eaten too many mushrooms that make you see funny colors. Our feeble human attempts to create order from chaos, to find sandwiches from salads, are an affront to the stark and simple beauty of the truth: it’s all soup, man.
All food is basically soups with differing levels of organization/entropy where soups are most entropic. At one time I thought things could be divided into sandwiches and salads but came to realize salads are just disorganized sandwiches and could be considered organized cold soups. I am a soup monoist and cannot be swayed. I have also read too much philosophy and eaten too many mushrooms that make you see funny colors. Our feeble human attempts to create order from chaos, to find sandwiches from salads, are an affront to the stark and simple beauty of the truth: it’s all soup, man.
I love this movie. Barfly starring Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunaway.
Well said. I certainly did not mean to raise the authentic food debate. I find that whole authenticity argument sort of pointless since, as you note, food constantly evolves. I also appreciate the enlightenment on burritos. I would say that serving beans, potatoes, or pretty much any savory food in a warm flour tortilla is just a taco. I may need to rethink my understanding (but not my enjoyment) of tacos.
I remember when this movie came out, there were several of my friends who thought the movie was Barf-ly (adv form of barf), and not Bar-fly.
Oh, my. Is today the day that the “is a hot dog a sandwich” debate begins on B&B?
Is an Oreo a sandwich?
Have any of you tried this?
To bring this back to the original post, are tacos sandwiches?
Similar threads
