"Ethnic" food

[Steve Plotnicki]

Excuse me? Under what I just said, anyone who isn't poor could not be considered ethnic. Ducasse is not poor, in fact he's a wealthy guy. Why would he be considered ethnic? But this is why the French, Belgians, Swedes, Canadians, Australians etc. are not considered ethnic. But it is why the Italians, Greeks (read Catholic) generally are.

[Ron Johnson]

Yes, but I do not agree with nor adhere to what you just said.

[Steve Plotnicki]

You've lost me. What is it that you do not adhere to?

All I wrote is what I believe the word "ethnic" is code for. I don't even think people are trying to draw a negative inference when they use the term. But I thought that Pan's point was that it doesn't matter. There is a negative inference no matter what you intend to say.

Edited February 24, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[tommy]

There is a negative inference no matter what you intend to say.

i know of only one or two words in this culture that fit that description. "ethnic" isn't one of them, and i bet there are some people who would take offense to it being put in the same bucket as those others.

edit: or perhaps i'm misunderstanding the outrage that some feel on this issue.

Edited February 24, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Ron Johnson]

When people ask me what is my ethnic background, I tell them. No big deal. Should I have been offended because they said the word "ethnic"? I don't get it.

Edited February 24, 2003 by Ron Johnson (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ron - I think you might be missing the point or else I don't understand you.. I have no problem with people describing me through my ethnicity, in fact I sort of revel in my ethnicity. But that is not the same thing as a broad brush term that basically says, "not like us." Because indeed the people the term is trying to describe are exactly like us, regardless of their ethnicity.

[Wilfrid]

Isn't the point that, in Pan's context, "ethnic" is being used as imprecise short-hand for cheap, "foreign", largely (but not exclusively) non-white cuisines, as if they were a homogenous inexpensive eating opportunity for the white middle classes. "Hey, let's eat something ethnic tonight". I am putting it in those terms just to get across what might be offensive about the term. Ron, I don't think anyone's claiming that all uses of the word "ethnic" are potentially offensive.

[tommy]

Isn't the point that, in Pan's context, "ethnic" is being used as imprecise short-hand for cheap, "foreign", largely (but not exclusively) non-white cuisines, as if they were a homogenous inexpensive eating opportunity for the white middle classes.  "Hey, let's eat something ethnic tonight".  I am putting it in those terms just to get across what might be offensive about the term.  Ron, I don't think anyone's claiming that all uses of the word "ethnic" are potentially offensive.

But I thought that Pan's point was that it doesn't matter.  There is a negative inference no matter what you intend to say.

i'm having a hard time reconciling these two statements.

edited for clarity.

Edited February 24, 2003 by tommy (log)

[Wilfrid]

Not difficult. In the second quote, the phrase "no matter what you intend to say" means, if I can read at all, "no matter what you specifically intend when you describe a bunch of restaurants as 'ethnic'". It doesn't mean "no matter in what context the term 'ethnic' is being used". The two comments are, therefore, consistent and reasonable interpretations of the interesting point Pan made.

[Ron Johnson]

Pan's point was interesting.

[tommy]

Not difficult.  In the second quote, the phrase "no matter what you intend to say" means, if I can read at all, "no matter what you specifically intend when you describe a bunch of restaurants as 'ethnic'".  It doesn't mean "no matter in what context the term 'ethnic' is being used".  The two comments are, therefore, consistent and reasonable interpretations of the interesting point Pan made.

i'm a bit disappointed in your tone.

[Wilfrid]

I didn't mean to have a tone. Sorry. Just trying to explain.

[tommy]

I didn't mean to have a tone.  Sorry.  Just trying to explain.

ugh. my bad. i misread your post. my apologies.

however, i still have a hard time reconciling those two interpretations of pan's point (even if they are very similar - but not the same), and the fact that we have several interpretations of a pan's post in the first place.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes, I thought your tone was that in-between the pickups, Stratocaster reverse polarity tone. Try and watch it next time and stick to food board tone oaky.

[Wilfrid]

Oaky doaky.

[=Mark]

But this is why the French, Belgians, Swedes, Canadians, Australians etc. are not considered ethnic. But it is why the Italians, Greeks (read Catholic) generally are.

I'm not sure of this link to the Catholic faith in terms of ethnicity. Would Indian Hindus, Asian Buddhists and Pakistani Muslims be required to convert to Catholicism in order to be considered ethnic?

I can see it now... "We're sorry Ramesh, we know you'd really like to open an Indian restaurant, but until you become a Catholic you can only operate American fast food franchises..."

[Steve Plotnicki]

No, no, no, a large percentage of immigrants to the U.S. were poor Europeans who happened to be from predominantly Catholic countries. Like the Irish and the Italians. The Jews fit this bill too. Not German Jews because they were high class, Jews from Eastern European who are considered ethnic. That the term was applied to describe immigrants from other continents, predominantly South America and Asia, that is a more recent wave of immigration and a more recent use of the term.

[Stephanie]

Excuse me? Under what I just said, anyone who isn't poor could not be considered ethnic. Ducasse is not poor, in fact he's a wealthy guy. Why would he be considered ethnic? But this is why the French, Belgians, Swedes, Canadians, Australians etc. are not considered ethnic. But it is why the Italians, Greeks (read Catholic) generally are.

I think most Greeks would plotz and/or attack you if you implied they were Catholic. But I get your general point.

Edited February 24, 2003 by Stephanie (log)

[yvonne johnson]

"Ethnic" = spicey.

Just a thought.

(PS: I share Pan's reservations about the word "ethnic" because everyone belongs to a distinct ethnic group. It's just that white people, in the main, tend not see their own "ethnicity", viewing it as the norm, and see it only in those who are from other ethic groups. The same goes for race.)

[Fat Guy]

Would anybody care to comment directly on my contention that this is really a question of culinary orthodoxy and not of ethnicity? I think therein lies the path to better terminology.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes your contention is wrong .

[Pan]

The only implicit putdown is the generalization that people who use the term are racist.

Stop right there:

Are you accusing anyone of making such a generalization? Out with it, man!

[Pan]

The example of "race" records is relevant: no-one would want to revive that, yet "R&B" is still used as a very wide and imprecise term for "black" music (yes, there are a few white artists who would fall into that category, but you get my point).  I think "R&B" is considered a useful and non-offensive term.

It's definitely inoffensive, but it isn't a general category for all "black" music or even all "non-serious" black music. Rhythm & Blues is a genuine style, and I would characterize it as a style of pop tunes over blues chord progressions, plus some slick amplification and mixing. Compare Soul Food, for example. OK, there have been long debates over what that is, too, but it does describe traditional black food (and, to an extent, related white food) from the South, and though that's a recognizable style, too, on second thought, it may be a good deal broader as a category than R&B.

[indiagirl]

steve, i believe i did obliquely comment on your observation regarding "culinary orthodoxy" - in fact i even agreed with it.

my words were certainly not as eloquent as yours and my viewpoint not as insightful. your expression has allowed me to extend my basic just-the-facts-ma'am observation into a viable interpretation on the usage of "ethnic cuisine"

to paraphrase what i said - ethnic foods are those that require ingredients which are absent in your run of the mill grocery store.

if i were to attempt to take that observation to a slightly higher plane so that it could converse with your theory of culinary orthodoxy, it would get restated as follows:

the culinary aspects or implications of the phrase "ethnicity" when used to describe a cuisine dominate the social ones.

while the social implications are by no means absent, and can frequently be derogatory, they are secondary to the culinary ones.

this would imply that ethnic foods would be ones which used ingredients and techniques that were not used/practised either by famous chefs or suburban households, further they would use ingredients that are uncommon but not necessarily rare, in a global sense.

so a restaurant that served truffles would not qualify. rare but mainstream.

a restaurant that used asafoetida in it's cooking would qualify, until asafoetida was commonly available at the local grocery store.

and then there is chipotle. which is more commonly available than asafoetida but not quite ubiquitous, which would probably lead to yet another classification - transitioning ethnic foods.

si?

non?

[Pan]

But Wilfrid, look at the counterexamples of white nations with cuisines that most Americans would consider "ethnic": Spain, Greece, Argentina, Chile, etc. I don't think this is primarily a race issue.

I agree. It's in no way strictly racial, except perhaps for those for whom it is (I'm gathering that perhaps there are some who don't consider any "white food" ethnic; I hadn't known that).