Wikipedia describes a Hamburger as "a sandwich consisting of a cooked patty of ground meat usually placed inside a sliced bread roll."

But we all know that the taxonomy of the Hamburger is a much debated topic. Some friends of mine have been arguing back and forth for over a year now, and don't seem to be anywhere near an agreement.

This branch will try to answer the age old question: Is a Hamburger a Sandwich, or something worthy of its own title?

#notasandwich

#notasandwich

State your arguments! A summary would be nice, or I can pick and choose from the past arguments.

media.tumblr.com

The argument by burger-deniers generally goes that anything between two slices of bread is a sandwich, but a burger patty between two slices of bread is a patty melt; not a hamburger.

To rely on that argument is to make base an unmistakably unique cuisine.

If you ordered a hamburger and recieved a patty melt, you would be confused, and likely disgruntled.

Whereas if a turkey sandwich arrived on a bun you may not even notice.

This is not to say a turkey burger is impossible, just that one is unmistakably different from a sandwich.

Therefore I submit that a buger is a Gestalt masterpiece, risen above these superficial, plebian preconceptions.

Free yourself from monoculturistic sandwich tyranny.
Honor the burger as #notasandwich.

Mr. Mangan is attempting to misdirect the public by making a believable, but factually inaccurate description of the argument for sandwich status. The fact of the matter is the format of the bread itself does not dictate sandwich status. Classification does not depend on slices from a loaf. And even if it did, the two halves of a bread roll would still be bread slices.

Nay, ser.
You cook feints within feints, like so many burgers mis-categorized under "Sandwiches" on now-boycotted diner menus.

My argument is as pure and simple as a midwestern smash-style burger*:
No one would could confuse a hamburger with a mere sandwich.
They are uniquely different, with wide variety to their creation, and inconsequential similarities in construction.

You rely on evolutionary and taxonomical rolodexing to deny it; as if cuisine is bound by laws of science, and is not, itself, an art form. You deny chefs the world over their artistic license!

It's high time burger artists broke free of the Salon du Sandwich!

The burger is culinary canon, and stands easily on it's own.

*(great, simple burger: thepauperedchef.com)

Hamburger is not EQUAL to sandwich--but it's definitely a kind of sandwich. I can have a hamburger without the bun... or just "hamburger" (the meat) and these are not sandwiches. But if I was browsing a menu I would not be shocked if I saw a hamburger listed under "sandwiches". Describe how to make a hamburger (with a bun and trimmings) and it'd be identical to most sandwiches--except for the fact it's always cooked.

Finally, the ultimate way to judge is based on finances (not wikipedia). For example, if the menu said "all sandwiches come with fries or chips"... I think a reasonable person WOULD expect the fries to also come with the hamburger.

"burger ≠ sandwich" was the postulate of the original discussion.
The current prompt is leading.

@Kevin: But it seems like your main argument is that a burger is so amazingly awesome that it transcends being a sandwich. Perhaps an apt analogy would be that the iPhone is such an amazing device, it ceases to be a phone and is just an amazing piece of technology worthy of its own separate recognition?

On the other hand, burgers are clearly labeled (mislabeled?) as sandwiches all over the world by the general public, so changing that perception won't be an easy feat.

Often burgers have their own area of the menu, so it's not entirely accurate to say that they're labeled all over the world by the general public as a sandwich. They're labeled more often, I find, as a burger.

Further, I asked Yeah! Burger about this, and while they don't come down definitively on one side or the other, they do appear somewhat skeptical to the idea of the burger as a sandwich - "perhaps", as though it were an afterthought, not before considered, since obviously a burger is not really a sandwich.

"The term sandwich is far too broad. i.e. Would you like a turkey sandwich or an ice cream sandwich? We like to define any type of protein/veggie, that is ground and formed into a patty, a burger. A turkey sandwich = slices of whole turkey. A turkey burger = ground turkey. Perhaps a burger is a type of sandwich, but at least saying burger narrows it down a bit."

The broadness of the term sandwich is precisely why we have names for specific variations. That's how taxonomies work. You and I are apes, but we are not orangutans. Saying a burger is a sandwich is not saying that a burger and a hoagie are the same thing. It's saying they're related.

A critical stumbling point for those attempting to understand for the first time why a burger is not a sandwich is due to the natural tendency for a thinking man to default to zoological taxonomy as a crutch for organization:

"Why, the sandwich is a genus of food and the hamburger is merely a species within this group" the average layman may proclaim.

This form of hierarchal classification is no more appropriate to the culinary inventions of the human mind than it is to our great works of art and scientific discovery. Though Darwin toiled on his great work during the Victorian era, we don't blithely refer to evolution as a "Victorian Theory".

The statement above would have you believe that taxonomy is limited to biological classification and thus not applicable to food. But this is either a deliberate lie or ignorance on the author's part.

Taxonomies can be applied to anything, whether they be abstract concepts, themes, properties, animate and inanimate objects.

Indeed the great Aristotle wrote something call "Categories" in which he classified everything in human understanding. But you don't need Aristotle to tell you that taxonomies are applicable to food. Walk to your nearest supermarket and have a look above the aisles.

Categorizing is fine, but that does not mean that improper categorization is not to be challenged.

You claim hierarchy, but a hamburger is not confined to bread, and cannot always be seen as the child of sandwich.

The first hamburgers were served sans bread.
In-N-Out serves a hamburger "protein style", wrapped in lettuce.
Hamburger Helper is a pasta dish!!!

There are more examples — far more than will fit in a Branch post — that disrequire bread yet obviously qualify as hamburger.

So take burgers out of your manilla "sandwich" folder!

Creative methods of preparation cannot be shackled by the chains of your hierarchical taxonomies!

As a founding member of the frog Sandwich Club I have been discussing and debating these very questions for years.

The consensus so far is that Burgers are not sandwiches because of their ground nature. A tri-tip sandwich between bread is a sandwich as the meat (the same animal as a burger) has not been ground.

There are still raging debates and open questions as you walk the continuum of wrap, burrito, pita pocket and pita pockets that are separated into halves (vertically or horizontally).

To start this question I would ask where does a wrap of sliced meats and cheeses fall in the sandwich continuum?

Great question for a new branch!

You make a good point (on the gounrd nature of the meat) but the burger ≠ sandwich conversation is far from over, as the world continues to be confused by burger deniers.

As far as taxonomy goes, it seems very clear that since a sandwich is "stuff between bread" then a burger is undeniably a sandwich.

However, I will concede that it is so extraordinarily different from sandwiches that perhaps it does deserve extra recognition in the same kind of way that a Platypus does: It's a mammal, but so different from other mammals that it really does deserve somewhat of a unique classification.

Worth mentioning is a classic argument in the burger v. sandwich debate, which goes something like:

If you order a sandwich, and receive a burger instead, most would be happy.

If you order a burger and receive a sandwich, most would be upset.

(Vegetarians notwithstanding).

Regardless of the slapdash definition of the sandwich as "typically consisting of two or more slices of bread" found on Wikipedia, I've found this scenario to resonate with many people.

@Goff
We've gone over that the bun is traditional, but not at all required.

Any Atkins Diet follower (no comment) lives that life every, miserable day! (OK, slight comment.)

Simple hierarchy fails.
The panini patriarchy crumbles!
A new model is needed: for the hamburger stands stoicly, backed by its many varied styles, cowering not beneath the puny parasol of sandwich papradigms!

*Geoff.
:\

i.imgur.com

"If you order a sandwich, and receive a burger instead, most would be happy. If you order a burger and receive a sandwich, most would be upset."

A most fallacious argument, as it implies sandwich means but one thing. It's like saying if you order a coke and receive a soda, you'd be upset.

More like:

(courtesy of Ray Doeksen)

So are we all agreeing to disagree?