What on earth is General Tso's chicken?

[sqbr]

I keep meaning to post about cultural appropriation since I think it's a really important and interesting issue, but since I'm still figuring it out my ideas never quite coalesce. But in the meantime White American culture is General Tso’s Chicken and Chop Suey.

The video (by Jennifer 8. Lee) is definitely worth watching, about the way that "chinese american" food is as american as beer and pizza and the history of it's invention and misrepresentation.
It's interesting as someone from a different non-chinese country, with it's own different "chinese" food. It took me years to figure out what "egg rolls" and "pot stickers" were :)

The article (by Restructure) is more interested in why this is bad.

Something Restructure brings up in the comments which really pinged for me is that people go on about "authenticity" and it gets this social cache (ie "authentically exotic" food/clothes/music etc as a sign of being cosmopolitan) when what we should worry about is if something is representative.

My thoughts, disclaimer 3b applies. The many Authentic Chinese People on my flist are welcome to thwap me for spouting crap :)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with people outside China eating "Chinese" food which has little similarity to anything eaten in China. As long as people are aware that it's not "Chinese food", it's a new cuisine which owes as much to the country it's made in as the country it's "from" (like tex-mex compared to actual mexican food, a distinction which in my experience gets lost outside america)

I'm still figuring out what we as (white) individuals can do about this though, beyond just becoming aware of and admitting our own ignorance. Also our own subjectivity: chinese food as eaten in China may seem odd and unappetising to western palettes, but that doesn't make it bad, it just makes us products of a different culture with its own tastes. EDIT: and as both the video and stephiepenguin point out, being aware of the specific racist history behind a lot of this stuff. It's not just benign cultural exchange.

Some people might argue that we should try to only eat representative/"authentic" food, but I'm not sure that's helpful or even possible. Cultures don't divide up neatly like that(*), and if white people eat chinese food we're always going to tend to support business which cater to more western tastes, and if we don't then we're costing chinese restauranteurs business.
EDIT (thanks to commenters): Also there is no one "authentic" way of cooking anything: cultures are complicated and blurry and have lots of subtle subdivisions, and within that you have all the individual cooks who have their own tastes and restrictions. I think the idea of "authenticity" ties into the tendency for people to homogenise the "Other". This is particularly bad when done to "chinese", an adjective which applies to a huge range of subcultures and peoples both inside China and out.

I don't know. I always feel a bit overwhelmed when I consider these situations where the individual actions of rich/white/western people, all made from rational matters of taste/self interest(**), add up to negative social patterns. Because usually it's the case that simplistically moving in the opposite direction causes a different problem, like gentrification vs segregation or white flight. I think I need to gain some levels in anti-racist thinking before I can get my head around it :)

I have such a craving for "chinese" food now...

(*)Note the way that much "chinese" food in Australia is not only chinese-australian food, but chinese-malaysian-australian etc. And why should asian chefs be forced to stick with "authentic" dishes if they want to create something different?
(**)Plus a hefty dose of racism in many cases. But even if not, the racist/classist etc culture they're made in twists the effects

Comments

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

Wow thanks for that link and your thoughts on this. My family joke about "Australian Chinese" and "Proper Chinese" restaraunts. Any place where the sweet and sour is toxic bright pink is a bad sign...

[alias_sqbr]

I think the pinnacle of that sort of cuisine ids the dim sim :)

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

Everybody is talking about this before I have a chance! ;oP

I have for some time now really really wanted to read Jennifer 8.Lee's book. I recently finished reading another book, China to Chinatown: Chinese Food in the West, which was very emphatic about the fact that there exists Chinese-XYZ styles.

I agree with your thoughts on there not being anything wrong with people eating "Chinese" food. Experimentation with food and food styles creates deliciousness, and although I've often scoffed at the idea of fusion food, being Chinese-Malaysian means that a lot of the food I think of as home food is already fusion food. It's Chinese food with all these changes, extra spices due to the Indian influence and changes in noodle styles thanks to Malay influence and it's all grand, and so the fact that there exists Chinese-Australian (or Chinese-American or Chinese-French) food isn't inherantly bad, so long as we can recognise these things for what they are. In some instances of course they are demonstrations of cultural imperialism - the China to Chinatown book suggests that the creation of Chinese-American food like chop suey was to make people like Chinese food better, and therefore like Chinese people better.

[alias_sqbr]

In some instances of course they are demonstrations of cultural imperialism - the China to Chinatown book suggests that the creation of Chinese-American food like chop suey was to make people like Chinese food better, and therefore like Chinese people better.

Yes, and I should have mentioned that too *edits*.

Did you read the comments? There's all these people saying "Well, it's chinese people's fault for selling that sort of food!". With the implication that if they'd just stuck to "authentic" dishes when they came over americans would have cheerfully acclimatised, or at worst shrugged their shoulders and gone "Oh well, different strokes I guess".

EDUT: Oh and with fusion food for me at least the problem is the implication (as with so much cultural appropriation) that the bastardised version is "inventive" and "hip" in a way the original isn't.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Oh and with fusion food for me at least the problem is the implication (as with so much cultural appropriation) that the bastardised version is "inventive" and "hip" in a way the original isn't.

Can you unpack this for me? My reaction is basically "...isn't it, though?" I mean, almost by definition blending cuisine styles is going to come up with something different than either parent, and if it's original and any good why wouldn't you call it inventive? Why shouldn't it be hip?

[alias_sqbr]

*flails vaguely*

I think it is sometimes very inventive, but a lot of the time it's just a more pretentious version of "Beef and kai-lan made with broccoli instead". Repackaging other culture's stuff with a few minor changes and a giant mark-up is this big Thing people from a dominant culture do, and rubs me the wrong way, but I agree it's not 100% clear-cut here.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Cheers.

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

I have not yet read the comments, but there are still three hours of work left in which I can get VERY ANGRY at people on the internet.

[alias_sqbr]

Glad to oblige :D

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with eating 'inauthentic' food, it is just the ignorance of believing its authentic that is a problem (and that isn't necessarily a problem if you just eat it, only if you spout of about it). Food adapts to the local ingredients, local tastes, local conditions (and notably local religious observance etc). And the people of the great Chinese Diaspora are particularly good at adapting to local conditions and tastes with enthusiasm.

And 'authenticity' means a lot less than we think unless you are going for it as a foody experience. To people used to Western diets, authentic Mexican food seems like you've taken Tex-Mex and taken out the salad and replaced it with extra pork fat -- why not eat healthier food that matches your tastes better? Authenticity is, IMO, mostly a myth -- you can't really have an authentic national or ethnic cuisine beyond a dish or two, you can have an authentic cuisine of specific people in a specific time and place (which will have some regional and temporal variation, and usually borrow freely from neighbouring cuisine). The reason to seek out more 'authentic' Chinese food is simply that you are likely to get better, and more interesting, food if you avoid the lowest common denominator, but there is no reason why eating Australian Chinese (or Australian Generic Asian eg Hans) is any better or worse than grabbing a burger or a steak and chips. But interesting and wildly inauthentic food is great too (hooray for fusion and innovation in cooking). But it almost always makes sense that, unless you are specifically aiming for an experience out of your normal eating habits, that you try to eat food that is based around ingredients available cheaply locally, which will mean adapting recipes away from their places of origin.

In the case of China, which is of course a huge place, there isn't really a single Chinese food anyway -- there are the various regional cuisines that I know discover are called the Eight Great Traditions (plus some more).

I like Australian Chinese food. It isn't authentic, but who cares? I also think I like various kinds of Chinese Chinese food, but I've only eaten them in restaurants Australia, so who knows? I've certainly eaten lots of really not Australian things (ducks feet and jellyfish and various fungi and so on), but as to how it resembles what I might eat in China, I have no idea. And Australian Chinese food has quite a history of its own -- apparently, its been evolving since the gold rush era in the 1800s.

And oh, the Americans in particular do this to everyone, not just non-white people -- I have a whole story about Australian Toaster Biscuits, that not only would an Australian not recognise as Australian, they would never refer to as a Biscuit. I feel vaguely relieved to confirm that English Muffins are actually known as muffins in England, though.

The whole idea of authentic food breaks down so quickly, especially if you look at the history. The commonest dish in England is Chicken Tikka Marsala, a dish that was invented in Glasgow. Almost any use of pineapple in Australian cooking, now considered quite traditional, is essentially due to a single successful marketing campaign, I think in the 1940s. Vietnamese food can include a lot of recipes that are attempts to replicate French cooking using Vietnamese ingredients. The Tomato wasn't part of Italian cooking before the early 18th century or so. Vindaloo was originally an Indian attempt to replicate a Portugese dish. Chilli was introduced in Szechuan cooking only after it was introduced outside South America by Columbus. And so on.

[alias_sqbr]

The reason to seek out more 'authentic' Chinese food is simply that you are likely to get better, and more interesting, food if you avoid the lowest common denominator...But interesting and wildly inauthentic food is great too

Absolutely.

And yes, there isn't One Homogenous Chinese Cuisine. (This reply is so short because I was just nodding to everything you said..)

Heh. I guess you could consider spaghetti Very Inauthentic Chinese Food :)

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how historically accurate this is, but I believe that when MacDonald's first went to China they had to change the recipe for the buns because there was too much sugar in the bread for the locals' taste. Less sugar? That's not authentic North American food!

Also: MacSquid and MacPavlova :-(

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I can't speak to this one, but one of my very favourite food legends is the one that says that "McDonald's only put a pickle slice on their burger because otherwise it would be officially classed as 'confectionery'."

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, Mc not Mac. Quite happy to get that wrong.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. Given that in Singapore at least(*) there's a wide range of "sweet bread bun with meat and a sugar glaze" I'm not sure about that :) Tangent: Actually I think there's an interesting convergent evolution of south east asian candied pork and american candied bacon. Both a bit much for my bland australian palette :)

(*)Which is not China, but does have an ethnically chinese majority

[grahame.livejournal.com]

White American culture is General Tso’s Chicken and Chop Suey is an angry and trite essay. Apparently most people in America don't know that Amercian-Chinese food, derived in some sense from Chinese food, isn't actually what people eat in China. The essay then draws a line from that to the horror of white Americans trying to relate to Chinese americans (or just racial Chinese) through the 'chinese' food they eat.

How terrible that people try to find something in common with people they meet to start a conversation. How incredibly offense! I'm wringing my hat!

I can't state enough how much it annoys me that people ascribe terrible motives or underlying currents of racism to these things. Sure, it's a situation rooted in ignorance, but it doesn't seem something to get angry about. Knowing the history of Chinese-American food is interesting, perhaps this angry person should just educate people, and maybe calm down!

[alias_sqbr]

The main thing I was linking to was the video. I didn't 100% like the way the article was written myself(*), but on the other hand she made some good points (especially the later comment about authentic vs representative)

But I have to say I find it hard to see why you get disproportionately angry at people getting disproportionately angry about racism, especially since racism is a much more significant and destructive problem than people getting disproportionately angry about racism. If people can get angry about casting decisions and video games(**), why not about ignorance which causes measurable harm? Aren't anti-racists allowed to have angry rants?

I didn't read it as that angry anyway, and she is trying to educate people, thus the way the major points were bulleted and then bolded.

As for the "trying to find something in common" thing, I'm not sure I can get it across since it's not something I've experienced myself. A more extreme example, though, is the way my mum met gelignite for the first time and doggedly tried to start up a conversation about the Ming Dynsasty. Because obviously, being australian-raised and malaysian-born but ethnically chinese she must be interested ancient chinese history.

(*)Though I get the feeling I'm mainly just not used to her writing style
(**)To give two examples of things I've seen people get really angry about recently

[silkcorset.livejournal.com]

I agree with your analysis that moving in the opposite direction is not enough, especially when it's well-heeled urbanites looking down their noses at the plebeians who still think chop suey is Chinese food. Not every North American has the resources to access "real" Chinese food.

Also, they end up getting it wrong anyway, the real trick is that there is no such thing as "Chinese food." There is Mandarin cuisine (from Beijing), Cantonese cuisine, Sichuan, Tibetan, Shanghainese, Chinese Buddhist, Chinese Islamic, etc etc etc. A cook from Beijing would consider dan dan noodles (which are Sichuanese) to be very far removed from his own culinary tradition.

On a lighter note, potstickers totally exist in China, they're literally called "pan stick", and they're awesome.

PS - I followed your comment here from debunkingwhite. I hope you don't mind that I added you, your journal is very interesting.

[sanguinity]

I was thinking something similar about "Mexican" vs. "Tex-Mex": "Mexican" isn't a single cuisine.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I think white people being snooty about "authenticity" is usually more about reinforcing class prejudice than breaking down racial prejudice.

And yes, something I didn't mention but which is a good point is that there is not one "authentic" chinese cuisine.

On a lighter note, potstickers totally exist in China, they're literally called "pan stick", and they're awesome.

That doesn't surprise me: there's no reason to think australian "Chinese" food is any more authentic than american :)

Friending is always good!

[sanguinity]

Semi-random thoughts (should I invoke disclaimer 3b, too?): One of the problems I have with "authenticity" is that it's outsiders deciding that other people are or are not authentic. It reminds me a lot of the classism you discussed in your stuff white people like post. The reason White People complain about lower-class white people wearing "too much" make-up (to use an American example of classism), is because the lower-class people are being "inauthentic." Same with making desserts from mixing together cake mix and jello mix: "inauthentic." (Unless you're talking about red velvet cake, in which case it's authentic again.)

See rydra_wong's review of Cooking Like Mummyji: "authenticity," as a system imposed by privileged people, is a mechanism that writes others out of their own lives and cultures.

On the other hand, "authenticity" has at least some of its roots in trying to protect people from being written out of their own lives and cultures: a way to keep privileged outsiders from coming in and using their privilege to take over the shaman business, or anime business, or Chinese cooking business. (I don't think that's the main source of its roots; just one of the roots, which happens to be a good one.)

Which is where the segregation/gentrification analogy comes in: the root cause of the problem is deeper than the solutions being proposed, so all the "fixes" are actually only temporary harm-reduction measures. There's an unaddressed difference in power, and as long as that power-difference persists, the temporary "fix" for an immediate harm is going to tend to lay the path for a different kind of harm.

Such as it is, harm reduction isn't too bad of a short-term option, I think. But it helps a LOT to try not to be too ignorant, to stay aware of the potential bad effects of what you're doing. And it helps even more to realize that it's a kludgy, short-term patch that doesn't address the root of the problem.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes. It is vitally important that the boundaries of a given culture/ethnicity etc aren't completely ignored or eroded, but they cannot be defined or defended by outsiders/the dominant group. I know lots of people who've been told they're not "really" chinese/australian/gay/bi/straight etc.

Which is where the segregation/gentrification analogy comes in: the root cause of the problem is deeper than the solutions being proposed, so all the "fixes" are actually only temporary harm-reduction measures. There's an unaddressed difference in power, and as long as that power-difference persists, the temporary "fix" for an immediate harm is going to tend to lay the path for a different kind of harm.

Yes, the Kyriarchy is very sneaky, and pretty much every action you take in a prejudiced society ends up reinforcing one aspect of it or another. The trick is to try to have a net anti-prejudice effect I guess.

[vegetus.livejournal.com]

Wow thanks for that link and your thoughts on this. My family joke about "Australian Chinese" and "Proper Chinese" restaraunts. Any place where the sweet and sour is toxic bright pink is a bad sign...

[alias_sqbr]

I think the pinnacle of that sort of cuisine ids the dim sim :)

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

Everybody is talking about this before I have a chance! ;oP

I have for some time now really really wanted to read Jennifer 8.Lee's book. I recently finished reading another book, China to Chinatown: Chinese Food in the West, which was very emphatic about the fact that there exists Chinese-XYZ styles.

I agree with your thoughts on there not being anything wrong with people eating "Chinese" food. Experimentation with food and food styles creates deliciousness, and although I've often scoffed at the idea of fusion food, being Chinese-Malaysian means that a lot of the food I think of as home food is already fusion food. It's Chinese food with all these changes, extra spices due to the Indian influence and changes in noodle styles thanks to Malay influence and it's all grand, and so the fact that there exists Chinese-Australian (or Chinese-American or Chinese-French) food isn't inherantly bad, so long as we can recognise these things for what they are. In some instances of course they are demonstrations of cultural imperialism - the China to Chinatown book suggests that the creation of Chinese-American food like chop suey was to make people like Chinese food better, and therefore like Chinese people better.

[alias_sqbr]

In some instances of course they are demonstrations of cultural imperialism - the China to Chinatown book suggests that the creation of Chinese-American food like chop suey was to make people like Chinese food better, and therefore like Chinese people better.

Yes, and I should have mentioned that too *edits*.

Did you read the comments? There's all these people saying "Well, it's chinese people's fault for selling that sort of food!". With the implication that if they'd just stuck to "authentic" dishes when they came over americans would have cheerfully acclimatised, or at worst shrugged their shoulders and gone "Oh well, different strokes I guess".

EDUT: Oh and with fusion food for me at least the problem is the implication (as with so much cultural appropriation) that the bastardised version is "inventive" and "hip" in a way the original isn't.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Oh and with fusion food for me at least the problem is the implication (as with so much cultural appropriation) that the bastardised version is "inventive" and "hip" in a way the original isn't.

Can you unpack this for me? My reaction is basically "...isn't it, though?" I mean, almost by definition blending cuisine styles is going to come up with something different than either parent, and if it's original and any good why wouldn't you call it inventive? Why shouldn't it be hip?

[alias_sqbr]

*flails vaguely*

I think it is sometimes very inventive, but a lot of the time it's just a more pretentious version of "Beef and kai-lan made with broccoli instead". Repackaging other culture's stuff with a few minor changes and a giant mark-up is this big Thing people from a dominant culture do, and rubs me the wrong way, but I agree it's not 100% clear-cut here.

[capnoblivious.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Cheers.

[stephiepenguin.livejournal.com]

I have not yet read the comments, but there are still three hours of work left in which I can get VERY ANGRY at people on the internet.

[alias_sqbr]

Glad to oblige :D

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

I agree, there is nothing wrong with eating 'inauthentic' food, it is just the ignorance of believing its authentic that is a problem (and that isn't necessarily a problem if you just eat it, only if you spout of about it). Food adapts to the local ingredients, local tastes, local conditions (and notably local religious observance etc). And the people of the great Chinese Diaspora are particularly good at adapting to local conditions and tastes with enthusiasm.

And 'authenticity' means a lot less than we think unless you are going for it as a foody experience. To people used to Western diets, authentic Mexican food seems like you've taken Tex-Mex and taken out the salad and replaced it with extra pork fat -- why not eat healthier food that matches your tastes better? Authenticity is, IMO, mostly a myth -- you can't really have an authentic national or ethnic cuisine beyond a dish or two, you can have an authentic cuisine of specific people in a specific time and place (which will have some regional and temporal variation, and usually borrow freely from neighbouring cuisine). The reason to seek out more 'authentic' Chinese food is simply that you are likely to get better, and more interesting, food if you avoid the lowest common denominator, but there is no reason why eating Australian Chinese (or Australian Generic Asian eg Hans) is any better or worse than grabbing a burger or a steak and chips. But interesting and wildly inauthentic food is great too (hooray for fusion and innovation in cooking). But it almost always makes sense that, unless you are specifically aiming for an experience out of your normal eating habits, that you try to eat food that is based around ingredients available cheaply locally, which will mean adapting recipes away from their places of origin.

In the case of China, which is of course a huge place, there isn't really a single Chinese food anyway -- there are the various regional cuisines that I know discover are called the Eight Great Traditions (plus some more).

I like Australian Chinese food. It isn't authentic, but who cares? I also think I like various kinds of Chinese Chinese food, but I've only eaten them in restaurants Australia, so who knows? I've certainly eaten lots of really not Australian things (ducks feet and jellyfish and various fungi and so on), but as to how it resembles what I might eat in China, I have no idea. And Australian Chinese food has quite a history of its own -- apparently, its been evolving since the gold rush era in the 1800s.

And oh, the Americans in particular do this to everyone, not just non-white people -- I have a whole story about Australian Toaster Biscuits, that not only would an Australian not recognise as Australian, they would never refer to as a Biscuit. I feel vaguely relieved to confirm that English Muffins are actually known as muffins in England, though.

The whole idea of authentic food breaks down so quickly, especially if you look at the history. The commonest dish in England is Chicken Tikka Marsala, a dish that was invented in Glasgow. Almost any use of pineapple in Australian cooking, now considered quite traditional, is essentially due to a single successful marketing campaign, I think in the 1940s. Vietnamese food can include a lot of recipes that are attempts to replicate French cooking using Vietnamese ingredients. The Tomato wasn't part of Italian cooking before the early 18th century or so. Vindaloo was originally an Indian attempt to replicate a Portugese dish. Chilli was introduced in Szechuan cooking only after it was introduced outside South America by Columbus. And so on.

[alias_sqbr]

The reason to seek out more 'authentic' Chinese food is simply that you are likely to get better, and more interesting, food if you avoid the lowest common denominator...But interesting and wildly inauthentic food is great too

Absolutely.

And yes, there isn't One Homogenous Chinese Cuisine. (This reply is so short because I was just nodding to everything you said..)

Heh. I guess you could consider spaghetti Very Inauthentic Chinese Food :)

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how historically accurate this is, but I believe that when MacDonald's first went to China they had to change the recipe for the buns because there was too much sugar in the bread for the locals' taste. Less sugar? That's not authentic North American food!

Also: MacSquid and MacPavlova :-(

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

I can't speak to this one, but one of my very favourite food legends is the one that says that "McDonald's only put a pickle slice on their burger because otherwise it would be officially classed as 'confectionery'."

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, Mc not Mac. Quite happy to get that wrong.

[alias_sqbr]

Hmm. Given that in Singapore at least(*) there's a wide range of "sweet bread bun with meat and a sugar glaze" I'm not sure about that :) Tangent: Actually I think there's an interesting convergent evolution of south east asian candied pork and american candied bacon. Both a bit much for my bland australian palette :)

(*)Which is not China, but does have an ethnically chinese majority

[grahame.livejournal.com]

White American culture is General Tso’s Chicken and Chop Suey is an angry and trite essay. Apparently most people in America don't know that Amercian-Chinese food, derived in some sense from Chinese food, isn't actually what people eat in China. The essay then draws a line from that to the horror of white Americans trying to relate to Chinese americans (or just racial Chinese) through the 'chinese' food they eat.

How terrible that people try to find something in common with people they meet to start a conversation. How incredibly offense! I'm wringing my hat!

I can't state enough how much it annoys me that people ascribe terrible motives or underlying currents of racism to these things. Sure, it's a situation rooted in ignorance, but it doesn't seem something to get angry about. Knowing the history of Chinese-American food is interesting, perhaps this angry person should just educate people, and maybe calm down!

[alias_sqbr]

The main thing I was linking to was the video. I didn't 100% like the way the article was written myself(*), but on the other hand she made some good points (especially the later comment about authentic vs representative)

But I have to say I find it hard to see why you get disproportionately angry at people getting disproportionately angry about racism, especially since racism is a much more significant and destructive problem than people getting disproportionately angry about racism. If people can get angry about casting decisions and video games(**), why not about ignorance which causes measurable harm? Aren't anti-racists allowed to have angry rants?

I didn't read it as that angry anyway, and she is trying to educate people, thus the way the major points were bulleted and then bolded.

As for the "trying to find something in common" thing, I'm not sure I can get it across since it's not something I've experienced myself. A more extreme example, though, is the way my mum met gelignite for the first time and doggedly tried to start up a conversation about the Ming Dynsasty. Because obviously, being australian-raised and malaysian-born but ethnically chinese she must be interested ancient chinese history.

(*)Though I get the feeling I'm mainly just not used to her writing style
(**)To give two examples of things I've seen people get really angry about recently

[silkcorset.livejournal.com]

I agree with your analysis that moving in the opposite direction is not enough, especially when it's well-heeled urbanites looking down their noses at the plebeians who still think chop suey is Chinese food. Not every North American has the resources to access "real" Chinese food.

Also, they end up getting it wrong anyway, the real trick is that there is no such thing as "Chinese food." There is Mandarin cuisine (from Beijing), Cantonese cuisine, Sichuan, Tibetan, Shanghainese, Chinese Buddhist, Chinese Islamic, etc etc etc. A cook from Beijing would consider dan dan noodles (which are Sichuanese) to be very far removed from his own culinary tradition.

On a lighter note, potstickers totally exist in China, they're literally called "pan stick", and they're awesome.

PS - I followed your comment here from debunkingwhite. I hope you don't mind that I added you, your journal is very interesting.

[sanguinity]

I was thinking something similar about "Mexican" vs. "Tex-Mex": "Mexican" isn't a single cuisine.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes, I think white people being snooty about "authenticity" is usually more about reinforcing class prejudice than breaking down racial prejudice.

And yes, something I didn't mention but which is a good point is that there is not one "authentic" chinese cuisine.

On a lighter note, potstickers totally exist in China, they're literally called "pan stick", and they're awesome.

That doesn't surprise me: there's no reason to think australian "Chinese" food is any more authentic than american :)

Friending is always good!

[sanguinity]

Semi-random thoughts (should I invoke disclaimer 3b, too?): One of the problems I have with "authenticity" is that it's outsiders deciding that other people are or are not authentic. It reminds me a lot of the classism you discussed in your stuff white people like post. The reason White People complain about lower-class white people wearing "too much" make-up (to use an American example of classism), is because the lower-class people are being "inauthentic." Same with making desserts from mixing together cake mix and jello mix: "inauthentic." (Unless you're talking about red velvet cake, in which case it's authentic again.)

See rydra_wong's review of Cooking Like Mummyji: "authenticity," as a system imposed by privileged people, is a mechanism that writes others out of their own lives and cultures.

On the other hand, "authenticity" has at least some of its roots in trying to protect people from being written out of their own lives and cultures: a way to keep privileged outsiders from coming in and using their privilege to take over the shaman business, or anime business, or Chinese cooking business. (I don't think that's the main source of its roots; just one of the roots, which happens to be a good one.)

Which is where the segregation/gentrification analogy comes in: the root cause of the problem is deeper than the solutions being proposed, so all the "fixes" are actually only temporary harm-reduction measures. There's an unaddressed difference in power, and as long as that power-difference persists, the temporary "fix" for an immediate harm is going to tend to lay the path for a different kind of harm.

Such as it is, harm reduction isn't too bad of a short-term option, I think. But it helps a LOT to try not to be too ignorant, to stay aware of the potential bad effects of what you're doing. And it helps even more to realize that it's a kludgy, short-term patch that doesn't address the root of the problem.

[alias_sqbr]

Yes. It is vitally important that the boundaries of a given culture/ethnicity etc aren't completely ignored or eroded, but they cannot be defined or defended by outsiders/the dominant group. I know lots of people who've been told they're not "really" chinese/australian/gay/bi/straight etc.

Which is where the segregation/gentrification analogy comes in: the root cause of the problem is deeper than the solutions being proposed, so all the "fixes" are actually only temporary harm-reduction measures. There's an unaddressed difference in power, and as long as that power-difference persists, the temporary "fix" for an immediate harm is going to tend to lay the path for a different kind of harm.

Yes, the Kyriarchy is very sneaky, and pretty much every action you take in a prejudiced society ends up reinforcing one aspect of it or another. The trick is to try to have a net anti-prejudice effect I guess.