Friday, October 22, 2021

All cuisine is fusion cuisine (if you look back far enough)

 

Preface: I am not even remotely an expert on this subject, and am happy to be corrected or given more information on any point where what I wrote is inaccurate or incomplete. I just love eating, love trying new flavors, and am writing a thing related to that, based on the limited knowledge and experience I have plus a few brief Google searches.

Today I got involved in a discussion about how American Mexican food isn’t real Mexican food, and what a travesty it is to put cheddar and sour cream on tacos.

And, I mean, they’re not wrong about Tex-Mex being very different than authentic Mexican food. Where they’re wrong is in saying that the fact that it’s not authentically Mexican means that it’s bad.

Just because an Americanized dish would be unrecognizable in the old country doesn't mean it's bad.

Entire books have been written about how Chinese American food is vastly different from authentic Chinese food. Crab Rangoon, chow mein, beef and broccoli, most of the dishes that we would order at an American Chinese restaurant... were invented by Chinese-American cooks using the ingredients that were readily available in America. But both cuisines are delicious.

I grew up with Italian New Yorkers. I learned how to make spaghetti and meatballs from my mom, who learned it from her dad... but he didn't learn it from his parents, because they came from Italy and the recipe didn't. It was invented here.

Furthermore, the authentic dishes of Italy today are radically different from the dishes that would have existed just a few centuries ago, before the tomato was introduced to Europe from the Americas. Or a couple centuries before that, when Marco Polo came back from China and said "Hey guys, guess what you can do with grains? You can grind them into flour, sure, but then you can make the flour INTO EDIBLE SHAPES."

And millennia before that, the stuff that the ancient Romans cooked was its own unique cuisine that was NOTHING like modern Italian food - whether your experience makes you think of "Italian food" as the kind you can get in a Tuscan ristorante or the kind you can get in a New Jersey diner.

And the Polish food that everyone, including native Poles, would consider most archetypal - pierogis - also didn't (and couldn't) exist a few centuries ago because the potato was busy being part of South American cuisine.

But you know what WASN'T part of South American cuisine at that time? Carne asada, pollo con mole, carnitas, or any other dish that involved chicken, beef, or pork. Those animals were introduced to the Americas by the colonizers. Same with pretty much any crop that relies on bees for pollination - no bees till the Europeans brought them. (They also brought rats and smallpox of course, along with guns and inventive new ways of being evil oppressors, but that's another blog for another, more knowledgable, person to write).

As for curry: It's such a mishmash of influences from British, Indian, and Portuguese cooks and ingredients that no one can really say what an "authentic" curry is.

Thai food - the current version owes its existence to chile peppers that were never native to Thailand.

Ethiopian food *cue heavenly choir descending to sing of its glory* - I think it quite possibly uses every spice that has ever existed anywhere, and that wasn't possible until people from everywhere started bringing spices to Ethiopia. Though injera is 100% Ethiopian - it's where teff originated, and where the technique was perfected thousands of years ago - a lot of the ingredients in the foods served over injera originated elsewhere.

Every cuisine developed, and evolved, and continues to evolve, based on one thing: What ingredients, fuels, and cooking methods are cheap and abundant and easily available to the cook?

Rice grows well in Eastern Asia. Wheat grows well in Western Europe. Tomatoes grow well in warm places. Potatoes grow well in cool places. Spicy food generally comes from countries where those spices grow well. Wine tends to show up where grapes grow, beer where wheat and barley and hops grow, sake where rice grows. Where you get chickpeas you get hummus. Where you get soybeans you get soy sauce. So of course you found rice noodles in China, baguettes in France, and so forth.

But when people move around, and bring their foods with them, you get new combinations. Where you got Italian chefs who suddenly lived in a place where there was cheap beef, you got spaghetti and meatballs. Where you got Chinese chefs who couldn't find any gai lan but had discovered broccoli from their Italian neighbors, you got beef and broccoli. Where you got Indian chefs using Portuguese ingredients and techniques along with their own, you got vindaloo. Where you got indigenous chefs who already had chocolate and chiles being introduced to chicken, you got pollo con mole.

No cuisine is "authentic" anymore, and hasn't been since the technology for world-wide trade and conquest began to exist. Go back far enough in time, and the only truly "authentic" food idea any culture came up with on its own was "Hey, maybe instead of eating it as soon as it stops wriggling we could hold it over the fire first - but not long enough to burn it." Anything more complicated than that required someone saying, at a minimum, "Hey, that plant that grows in the next valley would taste good with this, and maybe the people there would trade some for this plant that grows here". And all kinds of awesome foods have arisen from that blending of ideas and ingredients from all over the world. There's all kinds of horrible reasons those cultures got blended, of course - colonialism, slavery, wars, exploitation of immigrant labor, etc. And nothing can make those things not have been horrible. But that's all the more reason to celebrate the good things that ordinary people salvaged from those horrors, as ordinary people used what was available (usually under brutalizing circumstances) to do the most basic human thing possible: make something nice for their families to eat.

So by all means use cotija and crema if you can get them, rather than cheddar and sour cream. The more authentic ingredients are delicious, and if you're lucky enough to live in a city where lots of Latinos live and therefore the ingredients are available at the local stores, you should take the opportunity to try those ingredients. Get real Italian olive oil if you can afford it, and for God's sake don't waste it by cooking with it - dip your bread in it instead. If you can get bok choy instead of cabbage to go into your stir-fry, you will not regret doing so. Go find the one place in town that sells Ćwikła to have with your pierogies and kielbasa, if your town has a place that sells it.

But there's no need to be mad at other people for using what's easily and cheaply available to them instead of the original ingredients. That’s how people do food, and always have done food. And that’s where the exciting new ideas happen.

 


Thursday, October 7, 2021

Listening to experts

 

I don’t know anything about cars or how they work. I am aware that there is a thing called an internal combustion engine, and I have the general impression that the process involves very tiny and carefully controlled explosions, and something called pistons that go up and down with the tiny explosions, and gears connecting to other gears,  and that somehow all of that equipment converts fuel into energy into motion. But I have no real clue how any of it works.

 

Let’s imagine that I begin to have trouble with stopping the car, and when I go to the mechanic they tell me that the brake line has a leak and the brake pads and drums need replacement.

 

Now: Imagine that I didn’t trust that assessment for some reason. So I take it to another mechanic, and another, and another, and all of them tell me the same thing: Fix the brake line, pads and drums need replacement.

Let’s further imagine that, upon hearing that money is tight, the mechanics even offer to do the repairs for free, because they’re concerned that I will be a danger to myself and other drivers if I try to keep driving the car in this state. It’s ultimately self-interest that motivates them, because they don’t want to drive on a road with someone whose brakes don’t work, in case I end up harming them or someone they care about. The fact that they have good brakes, after all, is not going to fully protect them and their loved ones from me and my bad brakes. So it’s not pure altruism that drives them to offer the solution for free… but still, it means my problem can be addressed and it won’t cost me anything.

 

But I still don’t like the answer, so I go on Facebook and ask my friends and family what to do about my car. One of my friends tells me “Brake drums are a hoax by Big Auto to make money. Your real problem is that you didn’t feed the magic elves. Put some sugar in the gas tank, that’ll fix it”. And a bunch of my other friends tell me the same thing. One of them posts a link to someone who says he’s a mechanic and is wearing greasy overalls, who swears by the “elven gas tank sugar” solution.

 

However, none of these friends are mechanics. None of them know any more about how cars work than I do – possibly even LESS than I do. I don’t really understand what a brake drum is, but I DO know the elf solution is unlikely to be correct, and I DO know that sugar in the gas tank is not a good idea. And it seems unlikely that this one dude who says he’s a mechanic is right, when all the other mechanics say it’s the brake line, pads, and drums.

So:

Should I take the advice of people known to be experts? Or should I take the advice of people who don’t know anything, who are getting their advice from people who likewise don’t know anything?

 

It’s obvious how ridiculous it would be, in this scenario, to believe people who don’t know what they’re talking about, and ignore people who do. Anyone with any sense at all, whether they know about the subject or not, would tell me to listen to the experts rather than to the people contradicting experts. Even if the people spreading misinformation are ALSO claiming to be experts.

 

And yet, 1/3 of the country thinks they know better than doctors and scientists when it comes to vaccines…

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Evangelicals, abuse, and how the former can work to stop the latter

 

I saw an article posted on an Evangelical friend’s page today. And I cannot BELIEVE that I’m about to post a link to something from Focus on the Family, still less that I’m posting it because they are 100% RIGHT in what they said. But here we are:

 

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/how-to-know-if-youre-in-an-emotionally-abusive-relationship/?refcd=1085104&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=schmit_2021&A15utm_content=article&fbclid=IwAR19NdGOifVi3ULVJ19PEEcw3pPQ6bOO0GdvlySR23I_kGWnnNGrc8qoe0I

 

Let’s begin by saying: This article is a BIG step in the right direction for Evangelicals, and I want to give credit where it’s due. This article is a GOOD thing. Teaching women to recognize abuse, and that it’s okay to get out of an abusive relationship, is a GOOD thing. Teaching Evangelical women that domestic abuse violates the core principles of Christian Scripture, that abuse is a blasphemy against a God who is love – that’s a GOOD thing. The fact that it’s coming from such a conservative source as Focus on the Family indicates that even the people most reluctant to change their thinking are starting to do so, and that’s a good thing.

 

This article indicates that Evangelicals are taking a step in the right direction.

 

Having said that, I want to encourage them to take the logical next step…

 

Because if this article only teaches Evangelical women about the dangers of abuse from an individual man, but does NOT acknowledge the ways that Evangelical teaching and culture increase the risk of abuse, then the authors are straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel.

 

If Evangelical women and men are still being taught about “headship” and “complementarianism” and that women must obey their husbands in all things… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelical teen girls are still being preached at about modesty, but Evangelical teen boys are still not being preached at about consent… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelicals are still being taught that divorce is never okay unless one of the partners has been proven to have had sex with someone else… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelical parents are still being taught that they must hit their children in order to force obedience… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelical parents are still being taught to reject and even disown their children if their kids turn out to be LGBTQ… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelical men are still being taught that they must establish dominance and control in their families in order to properly fulfill their role as husbands and fathers… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

If Evangelicals continue to insist that abortion is never okay, even when a girl or woman has been raped, and therefore that the needs of a girl or woman are not as important as protecting the genetic material of a rapist… then Evangelicalism is setting people up for abuse.

 

It’s GOOD to take the first step of acknowledging that abuse is wrong, teaching women (who are the most likely victims of abuse) to recognize it, avoid it, and escape it. This is definitely a step in the right direction.

I hope Evangelicals will soon realize that the next step is to examine the ways their official and unofficial doctrine sets men up to feel okay with committing abuse, and sets women and kids up to accept abuse; and that they will start working to fix those things.