Class nosh

Food - Bee Wilson on how one man's fare is another man's feast

The foods that are treated as status symbols are interesting clues to different cultures. For many centuries in western Europe, the lavish consumption of sugar and meat were the surest signifiers of riches, until forced labour and intensive farming brought them within the reach of all. There was even a time when rotting teeth were coveted as indications of enviable sugar-eating. Very unlike our Nutrasweet era. Rich countries nowadays rate only a few foodstuffs as status symbols: truffles and gold leaf and finest beurre d'Isigny carved to look like mermaids, perhaps, but not much else. It is different in poorer countries. In war-torn Afghanistan, even using a large amount of cooking oil is seen as aspirational. Food that we might consider greasy (and hence poor) is seen by Afghans as a sign of affluence.

This insight comes from Noshe Djan: Afghan food and cookery by Helen Saberi, a fascinating work which has just been reissued. Despite its modern poverty, Afghanistan has rich and sometimes surprising culinary traditions.

The "basic diet of all Afghans" is composed of "nan, bread and chai, tea". Nan can be flavoured with nigella, poppy or sesame seeds, and is baked either in the family's own tandoor or by a nanwaee at a local tandoor bakery. If the baker is a woman, grooves are made in the bread; if a man, then cuts are made. The finished bread might be served, means permitting, with a partridge stew, or aubergines cooked in yoghurt, or maybe with kebabs, a radish salad and some coriander chutney.

Not all Afghan dishes are quite so approachable. Sa-beri, who lived in Afghanistan for ten years and married into an Afghan family, describes its peculiarities with affection and even hunger - such as the taste for lamb's fat, especially from the tail, or the use of rhubarb in savoury dishes (with spinach, for example, or lamb). Afghans are also partial to quroot, a kind of dried yoghurt resembling "white pebbles", which is reconstituted in water and sometimes eaten with garlic, salt, pepper and dried mint. The strangest-sounding dish in Saberi's book is a sweet "silk" egg kebab, which is made by drawing threads of beaten egg across a hot pan until they go "silken", a fabric which is then rolled up and sprinkled with sugar syrup and ground pistachios.

Other Afghan puddings stick to familiar eastern tastes for milkiness and rosewater. I made this custard recently and found it deliciously delicate, although it might not suit the tastes of those who dislike perfumed sweets: three of those I served it to were purring, while the other three pushed their plates away. The ingredients for six to eight would cost barely £1.50 in Britain, although Saberi says that, in Afghanistan, firni is a special-occasion sweet, reserved for weddings and Eid. But then, milk is another scarcity in the cities of Afghanistan, whereas here, as farmers know to their cost, it flows almost as cheaply as water, with no great status attached.

Firni (Afghan custard): "50g cornflour, 1 litre milk, 275g sugar (or a little less - this amount makes the firni very sweet), ftsp ground cardamom seeds, 25g each of finely chopped or ground pistachio nuts and almonds. Mix the cornflour with a small amount of cold milk into a paste. Heat the remaining milk in a pan and, when hot but not boiling, add the sugar . . . Stir well. When the milk is close to boiling, slowly add the cornflour paste, stirring continuously. Bring to the boil, add the cardamom, turn down the heat and simmer for about five minutes, stirring frequently to prevent sticking. Pour the firni on to a shallow serving dish and decorate it with [the nuts] and allow to cool. Firni is always eaten cold."

Noshe Djan, by Helen Saberi, has just been reissued in a new and revised second edition (Prospect Books, £12)

This article first appeared in the 10 July 2000 issue of the New Statesman, Education, education, profit

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.