This is more of a language use problem, in several ways.
The first comment is correct in stating that capsaicin containing dishes (these are the "hot, spicy") are very popular in Asia now, impossible to contain it before Columbus. Many Asians are oblivious to the fact and surprised to learn that chili-pepper is not like black pepper originally native to Asia.
The blog post uses even less precise language, as first of all those dishes in Asia alluded to originate from Asia. And more importantly second: it drops the signifier 'hot' and equates 'spicy' with 'capsaicin containing'. But that is a peculiarism of usage, ambiguous in itself and not universal to all variants of the English language, differing by regions.
From a sister site:
Difference between “spicy” and “hot” I make a distinction between "hot" and "spicy" food ("hot" not referring to temperature). I consider "hot" food the kind that "burns" and "spicy" food that has lots of flavor, but that may or may not "burn", but has some "heat" to it and is flavorful.
I've been told that there is no real difference between the two and that I'm crazy for thinking that Tabasco sauce makes something "hot", while something like curry, ginger, or cumin makes something "spicy". Please help me out a little here with a little clarification.
Or as Wikipedia put it:
The terms "pungent" and "pungency" are rarely used in colloquial speech but are preferred by scientists as they eliminate the potential ambiguity arising from use of the words "hot" and "spicy", which can also refer to temperature and the presence of spices, respectively. For instance, a pumpkin pie can be both hot (out of the oven) and spicy (due to the common inclusion of spices such as cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, mace, and cloves), but it is not pungent. (A food critic may nevertheless use the word "piquant" to describe such a pie, especially if it is exceptionally well-seasoned.) Conversely, pure capsaicin is pungent, yet it is not naturally accompanied by a hot temperature or spices.
As the Oxford, Collins, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries explain, the term "piquancy" refers to mild pungency and flavors and spices that are much less strong than chilli peppers, including, for example, the strong flavor of some tomatoes. In other words, pungency always refers to a very strong taste whereas piquancy refers to any spices and foods that are "agreeably stimulating to the palate", in other words to food that is spicy in the general sense of "well-spiced".
The problem is entrenched and likely to persist.
It's a genuine inadequacy in English vocabulary, with no simple fix:
"Hot" is ambiguous
"Spicy" is also ambiguous (certain kinds of cake, for example, are spicy but not hot)
"Piquant" is not frequently used, so could seem pretentious.
And to illustrate the regional variations, from a recent chat:
A: Do you use 'spicy' in that way? Is that not more like "hot". Re-checked a couple dictionaries and it is always just listing 'copious amounts of spices'.
B: Yes, I do. Something with lots of Oregano in it is not "spicy".
A: Then I am quite sure there is also one of these maps that picture this as a regionalism? Clearly something with Piper nigrum or Zingiber officinale is also spicy/hot. But indeed I find it very strange what is called *-pepper around the globe. WP describes capsaicin as pungent…
So Asians used pepper before Columbus, and then were introduced to capsaicin containing plants and allspice. Asian dishes are from Asia and contained spices before the columbian exchange. Another exchange to observe is that the very word "spicy" changed its meaning by that and for some refers exclusively to chili-pepper dishes.