Text 1
Despite how the Indian dish madras differs from Mauritius's gato pima, both dishes are described as a "curry." The word's history, however, is fraught. It's a term created by British and Portuguese colonizers to refer to the myriad spiced sauces with ties to the Indian subcontinent. In 1973, chef Madhur Jaffrey dismissed the term "curry" as inaccurate, and in 2021 blogger Nisha Vedi Pawar suggested that people abandon the term both for its colonial origin and for its failure to grasp the intricacies of India's cuisines.
Text 2
Growing up in India, chef Chintan Pandya didn't encounter the term "curry" often: his family didn't cook curries, but some of his neighbors did. Although the blanket use of the term is rooted in colonialism, Pandya calls some of his dishes curries. Having traveled throughout India as part of his training, he came to appreciate the country's diverse cuisines and the diverse uses of the term "curry."
Text 1 and Text 2 present points of view about which topic?
Explanation
Context: Text 1 provides background on the contested history of the word "curry"—created by colonizers to describe diverse South Asian sauces—noting that some chefs reject the term. Text 2 describes chef Chintan Pandya, who grew up in India where "curry" wasn't always used, but who now uses the term himself after experiencing India's diverse cuisines and uses of the word.
Answer: B) The use of the term "curry"
Why? Text 1 focuses on the term's colonial origins and calls to abandon it. Text 2 focuses on a chef who uses it despite its complex history. Both texts are explicitly about whether and how to use the word "curry."
Traps:
- A) History of peoples on the Indian subcontinent → both texts touch on India but focus on the term "curry," not on the peoples' broader history
- C) Difference between madras and gato pima → Text 1 uses these as examples but doesn't explain the difference; Text 2 doesn't mention them
- D) Best method for studying a region's cuisine → neither text is methodological; both focus on the term