Dirty Ethnic Markets

[jgm]

I think that instead of calling it a cultural prejudice, I'd call it a cultural difference, and simply recognize that the conditions in the ethnic groceries are just not what you're used to.

However, another thing to recognize is the very real possibility that people who shop at these small groceries, and have all of their lives, may have developed immunities to certain bacteria, and you may not have that immunity. Therefore, some of the things you see that you find objectionable, may not be a problem for others, but could pose a problem for you.

Having said this, I would offer that your response to this cultural difference was not to proclaim that a particular ethnic group is dirty, or has unacceptable cleanliness standards, or make other critical comments about them. You are reacting to your reluctance to purchase foods that may not have the level of sanitation you're used to, and perhaps that reaction is a good thing. You also didn't indicate you refused to purchase anything at all, based on what you saw in certain instances. You have remained open to purchasing those items you believe are safe for you to eat.

I'm reminded of Ruth Reichl's description of her mother's cooking, which often involved allowing food to sit out, unrefrigerated, for days. Her family didn't get sick from eating it, having developed the necessary defenses, but others did.

I'd say you should go with what that little voice is telling you when you pick up a jar that has food on the outside of it; that voice is protective, not prejudiced. And I think it's commendable that you'd question yourself over your reactions. My impression is that you're showing a good degree of cultural sensitivity, and a real attempt at being open minded.

[Pan]

This thread touches on a lot of very interesting issues.  I'd like to return to the question of "cultural prejudice," because I think it is both important and in need of clarification.  It strikes me that a number of responses to this question interpret the idea of cultural prejudice as straightforwardly pejorative, and I take issue with this.  If one holds an evaluative stance (either positive or negative) towards a type of state of affairs and associates that type of state of affairs primarily with certain cultures that are identified as "ethnic" or "not generic", then it seems pretty obvious that cultural bias is involved.  The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."[...]

←

Agreed entirely, Khadija. And the other thing that the usual(?) usage of "ethnic" does is to lump many almost entirely dissimilar cuisines and peoples together (dissimilar except for being human and being treated as a marked category). You might be interested in a lively discussion we had back in 2003: "Ethnic" food, Useless designation?

For the record, I don't use "ethnic" to refer to cuisine. I find it much more useful to refer to Chinese cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Korean cuisine, etc., or regional subdivisions thereof.

That said, as various people stated in the linked thread, we know what people are talking about when they mention "ethnic" restaurants or grocery stores, and the word is obviously a useful shorthand for many.

[nakji]

I'd like to re-iterate my point here, because I think it's getting lost in cultural relativism. I don't think that there is a pre-disposition in any culture to be more accepting of dirty/dusty/weeping/misordered cans or other food containers. Whenever I travel, I make it a point to search out food stores; I get a kick out of strolling through foreign supermarkets.

I've been in food stores or supermarkets all across Asia, and have shopped regularly in both Vietnam and Korea. The food stores here are full of clean, bright cans and bottles facing forward. Nothing is weeping anything. Nothing is dusty. People care a lot about the cleanliness and order of the products. They do not have lowered standards. They are not "used to" eating this way and are more accepting of it than us in their home countries.

But

When I visit special "western" ethnic markets; that is to say, small stores specializing in western food products that have been imported to Asia, such as cereal; bottled spaghetti sauce; Macaroni and Cheese; corn chips; various cheeses; lunch meats, etc.; these stores have been dusty, crowded, and jumbled full of cans and bottles in various states of disrepair. Are all the Vietnamese people who visit wondering, "Goodness, these foreigners who shop here must be used to such dirty stores! They must have special immunity for eating this stuff"?

So I think it's not where the shoppers are from that matters. It's the fact that

1) The products have come a long way and have suffered in transit and

2) shoppers in these stores have little choice when it comes to purchasing these products, so they must accept them in whatever form they find them in.

So to sum up: [Asian] people do not have lower standards for the condition of the products that they purchase BUT people who are buying products that remind them of home and can't find anywhere else do.

[ZenKimchi]

Excatly, Nakji.

Korean bakeries, in my opinion, go to the extreme in sanitized cleanliness in bakeries. Almost everything in my local bakeries is hermetically sealed in plastic packages. In America, we can buy bread at the bakery and have it just wrapped in some paper.

I forgot what my point was.

I guess it may be reversed when Koreans come to America and see all the bread in bakeries lying out in the open getting stale.

[SuzySushi]

I'd like to re-iterate my point here, because I think it's getting lost in cultural relativism. I don't think that there is a pre-disposition in any culture to be more accepting of dirty/dusty/weeping/misordered cans or other food containers. Whenever I travel, I make it a point to search out food stores; I get a kick out of strolling through foreign supermarkets.

I've been in food stores or supermarkets all across Asia, and have shopped regularly in both Vietnam and Korea. The food stores here are full of clean, bright cans and bottles facing forward. Nothing is weeping anything. Nothing is dusty. People care a lot about the cleanliness and order of the products. They do not have lowered standards. They are not "used to" eating this way and are more accepting of it than us in their home countries.

But

When I visit special "western" ethnic markets; that is to say, small stores specializing in western food products that have been imported to Asia, such as cereal; bottled spaghetti sauce; Macaroni and Cheese; corn chips; various cheeses; lunch meats, etc.; these stores have been dusty, crowded, and jumbled full of cans and bottles in various states of disrepair. Are all the Vietnamese people who visit wondering, "Goodness, these foreigners who shop here must be used to such dirty stores! They must have special immunity for eating this stuff"?

So I think it's not where the shoppers are from that matters. It's the fact that

1) The products have come a long way and have suffered in transit and

2) shoppers in these stores have little choice when it comes to purchasing these products, so they must accept them in whatever form they find them in.

So to sum up: [Asian] people do not have lower standards for the condition of the products that they purchase BUT people who are buying products that remind them of home and can't find anywhere else do.

←

I can see your points and tend to agree. Why, then, don't the shopkeepers of imported food stores (whatever country they're in) pay better attention to having attractive, clean displays? Would it cost so much extra that it would put them out of business (particularly if, as you suggest, the shoppers who are buying these products have few other sources for them)? Do they feel it doesn't matter because the shoppers will take anything they can get?

[prasantrin]

I can see your points and tend to agree. Why, then, don't the shopkeepers of imported food stores (whatever country they're in) pay better attention to having attractive, clean displays? Would it cost so much extra that it would put them out of business (particularly if, as you suggest, the shoppers who are buying these products have few other sources for them)? Do they feel it doesn't matter because the shoppers will take anything they can get?

←

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the goals of the owners of these businesses. Many, many small grocery stores are owned by people who are not necessarily interested in the food business. In Canada, for example, a number of Chinese restaurants and grocery stores opened up in the late '80s and early '90s. They were not opened by people who wanted to provide quality Chinese foods to the masses, but they were opened by immigrant investors, for whom opening some sort of store was the easiest way to immigrate to Canada. They couldn't care less about the store itself, and there were those who didn't even care if the place turned a profit. In those cases, they probably didn't care much about cleanliness or product quality.

The same might be said of earlier owners of these types of places. Many of them opened grocery stores and restaurants not because they really wanted to, but because they were shut out of every other business opportunity.

The questions you asked above, you also somewhat answered. Yes, many of the people who shop at "ethnic" grocery stores are not as particular about the condition of the goods they buy. So as a business owner, if you're out to make a profit and find that you don't need to have a more attractive (and slightly more costly) display to get that profit, why would you bother?

I think it's wrong, though, to assume that the customers will still shop at these places because they "will take anything they can get." Just because what might be acceptable to them is not acceptable to you (general "you"), does not mean they aren't selective or that they are desperate.

[sanrensho]

So as a business owner, if you're out to make a profit and find that you don't need to have a more attractive (and slightly more costly) display to get that profit, why would you bother?

Furthermore, if you have Egulleters coming into your "ethnic" store expecting better than supermarket prices, what incentive is there to raise prices and funnel the extra profits into upgrading the store appearance and furnishings?

The whole notion of making generalizations about "ethnic stores" strikes me as silly. I've been in "ethnic" Japanese and Korean grocers here in North America that were as well-kept as any mainstream supermarket. I've also seen my share of dirty, dusty "non-ethnic" stores. If a store is unkempt, it has nothing to do with nationality or ethnic origin. It's just an unkempt store.

[Khadija]

I'd like to re-iterate my point here, because I think it's getting lost in cultural relativism. I don't think that there is a pre-disposition in any culture to be more accepting of dirty/dusty/weeping/misordered cans or other food containers. Whenever I travel, I make it a point to search out food stores; I get a kick out of strolling through foreign supermarkets.

I've been in food stores or supermarkets all across Asia, and have shopped regularly in both Vietnam and Korea. The food stores here are full of clean, bright cans and bottles facing forward. Nothing is weeping anything. Nothing is dusty. People care a lot about the cleanliness and order of the products. They do not have lowered standards. They are not "used to" eating this way and are more accepting of it than us in their home countries.

But

When I visit special "western" ethnic markets; that is to say, small stores specializing in western food products that have been imported to Asia, such as cereal; bottled spaghetti sauce; Macaroni and Cheese; corn chips; various cheeses; lunch meats, etc.; these stores have been dusty, crowded, and jumbled full of cans and bottles in various states of disrepair. Are all the Vietnamese people who visit wondering, "Goodness, these foreigners who shop here must be used to such dirty stores! They must have special immunity for eating this stuff"?

So I think it's not where the shoppers are from that matters. It's the fact that

1) The products have come a long way and have suffered in transit and

2) shoppers in these stores have little choice when it comes to purchasing these products, so they must accept them in whatever form they find them in.

So to sum up: [Asian] people do not have lower standards for the condition of the products that they purchase BUT people who are buying products that remind them of home and can't find anywhere else do.

←

I agree with most of this, but I'd like to make one thing clear. In my post upthread, I spoke to the issue of cultural bias, but I was not making an argument from "cultural relativism" about there being different standards of anything in different cultures, or the possible legitimacy thereof. I also did not mean to say that I endorse the view that so-called ethnic markets are dirtier than so called generic or Western supermarkets. In fact, in my own armchair sociological observation, I tend to associate different types (not levels) of cleanliness and orderliness in markets with different socio-economic conditions (which are surely intertwined in complex ways with ethnicity). But armchair sociological observations are what they are. If there are any worthwhile generalisations to be made about some delineable standards of cleanliness in culturally marked types of food markets, then the issue is an empirical one, which should definitely not be settled from the armchair (or computer desk).

My point was that when we make evaluations about groups of people that we identify in terms of cultural markers, and we are uncomfortable about possible bias in our evaluations, we should not ask the question: "Am I culturally biased?" The important issue is whether cultural bias distorts perception in some relevant and problematic way. To ask this question does not make one a "cultural relativist" in a shallow sense (i.e., someone who believes something like "everything is relative" or "if its your culture, its okay"). Asking the question also does not commit one to accepting that one's initial armchair sociological observations about certain cultures are legitimate. On the contrary, by drawing attention to one's own perspective, the question is meant to force one to reflect critically on where one's folk sociological observations are coming from. This is an armchair activity that I would say is, to some extent, useful.

As I say, I probably agree about there not being worse standards of cleanliness in non-Western cultures. And while I am not deliberately trying to turn the discussion away from food, I think some of the terms of the discussion are so problematic to the extent that they distort the part of the discussion that is about food. Specifically, I don't think the term "relativism" should be brought up unless one's usage is very clearly explained. Otherwise, accusations of relativism generally dismiss some point of view by implying that it is premised on a shallow version relativism that no one actually holds (e.g., the versions described in the above paragraph). From my point of view (I am an academic philosopher), this is very problematic.

[Milagai]

I'd like to re-iterate my point here, because I think it's getting lost in cultural relativism. I don't think that there is a pre-disposition in any culture to be more accepting of dirty/dusty/weeping/misordered cans or other food containers. Whenever I travel, I make it a point to search out food stores; I get a kick out of strolling through foreign supermarkets.

I've been in food stores or supermarkets all across Asia, and have shopped regularly in both Vietnam and Korea. The food stores here are full of clean, bright cans and bottles facing forward. Nothing is weeping anything. Nothing is dusty. People care a lot about the cleanliness and order of the products. They do not have lowered standards. They are not "used to" eating this way and are more accepting of it than us in their home countries.

But

When I visit special "western" ethnic markets; that is to say, small stores specializing in western food products that have been imported to Asia, such as cereal; bottled spaghetti sauce; Macaroni and Cheese; corn chips; various cheeses; lunch meats, etc.; these stores have been dusty, crowded, and jumbled full of cans and bottles in various states of disrepair. Are all the Vietnamese people who visit wondering, "Goodness, these foreigners who shop here must be used to such dirty stores! They must have special immunity for eating this stuff"?

So I think it's not where the shoppers are from that matters. It's the fact that

1) The products have come a long way and have suffered in transit and

2) shoppers in these stores have little choice when it comes to purchasing these products, so they must accept them in whatever form they find them in.

So to sum up: [Asian] people do not have lower standards for the condition of the products that they purchase BUT people who are buying products that remind them of home and can't find anywhere else do.

←

I agree with most of this, but I'd like to make one thing clear. In my post upthread, I spoke to the issue of cultural bias, but I was not making an argument from "cultural relativism" about there being different standards of anything in different cultures, or the possible legitimacy thereof. I also did not mean to say that I endorse the view that so-called ethnic markets are dirtier than so called generic or Western supermarkets. In fact, in my own armchair sociological observation, I tend to associate different types (not levels) of cleanliness and orderliness in markets with different socio-economic conditions (which are surely intertwined in complex ways with ethnicity). But armchair sociological observations are what they are. If there are any worthwhile generalisations to be made about some delineable standards of cleanliness in culturally marked types of food markets, then the issue is an empirical one, which should definitely not be settled from the armchair (or computer desk).

My point was that when we make evaluations about groups of people that we identify in terms of cultural markers, and we are uncomfortable about possible bias in our evaluations, we should not ask the question: "Am I culturally biased?" The important issue is whether cultural bias distorts perception in some relevant and problematic way. To ask this question does not make one a "cultural relativist" in a shallow sense (i.e., someone who believes something like "everything is relative" or "if its your culture, its okay"). Asking the question also does not commit one to accepting that one's initial armchair sociological observations about certain cultures are legitimate. On the contrary, by drawing attention to one's own perspective, the question is meant to force one to reflect critically on where one's folk sociological observations are coming from. This is an armchair activity that I would say is, to some extent, useful.

As I say, I probably agree about there not being worse standards of cleanliness in non-Western cultures. And while I am not deliberately trying to turn the discussion away from food, I think some of the terms of the discussion are so problematic to the extent that they distort the part of the discussion that is about food. Specifically, I don't think the term "relativism" should be brought up unless one's usage is very clearly explained. Otherwise, accusations of relativism generally dismiss some point of view by implying that it is premised on a shallow version relativism that no one actually holds (e.g., the versions described in the above paragraph). From my point of view (I am an academic philosopher), this is very problematic.

←

what *she* said!

Khadijah: excellent points about conflating ethnicity with socioeconomic

status (i.e. income level etc.); and about using a cultural marker

to indicate any difference, and using "ethnicity" to explain any differences.....

And the stuff in your past paragraph is excellent.

Milagai

[Khadija]

This thread touches on a lot of very interesting issues.  I'd like to return to the question of "cultural prejudice," because I think it is both important and in need of clarification.  It strikes me that a number of responses to this question interpret the idea of cultural prejudice as straightforwardly pejorative, and I take issue with this.  If one holds an evaluative stance (either positive or negative) towards a type of state of affairs and associates that type of state of affairs primarily with certain cultures that are identified as "ethnic" or "not generic", then it seems pretty obvious that cultural bias is involved.  The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."[...]

←

Agreed entirely, Khadija. And the other thing that the usual(?) usage of "ethnic" does is to lump many almost entirely dissimilar cuisines and peoples together (dissimilar except for being human and being treated as a marked category). You might be interested in a lively discussion we had back in 2003: "Ethnic" food, Useless designation?

For the record, I don't use "ethnic" to refer to cuisine. I find it much more useful to refer to Chinese cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Korean cuisine, etc., or regional subdivisions thereof.

That said, as various people stated in the linked thread, we know what people are talking about when they mention "ethnic" restaurants or grocery stores, and the word is obviously a useful shorthand for many.

←

Thanks, Pan. I am very interested in the discussion on the thread you mention. I have similar worries about the term "ethnic." I couldn't agree more with your point about how the term "ethnic" tends to eclipse differences between the groups of people the term is meant to designate. Similarly, as I think you point out, terms like "generic" and "mainstream" tend to etiolate the differences, including ethnic differences, between people they are mean to designate. Thanks for the link.

[Patrick S]

The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."

←

I disagee. At least, that's not how I would interpret the terms. To me, the term "ethnic market" has always meant, very simply and just as the dictionary would seem to imply, a market that specifically caters to a particular group of people associated with a particular geographic derivation or ancestry. That would include, for example, the local Italian or Armenian or German or Polish or French (or whatever) markets that are largely run by, and cater to, caucasian persons. I've never understood "ethnic market" to mean "market catering to nonwhites," and I don't think that most other people do either.

[nakji]

Khadija,

Thanks for your clarification. I didn't mean to imply that you were being necessarily simplistic. I was trying to clarify my feelings from my first post - I wanted to be perfectly clear that people in other countries have similar standards to ourselves; in my (humble) opinion it's not the culture that results in the dirty stores, it's other factors. And I just felt that some posts were offering explanations that suggested culture was part of it; and excused it for those reasons....but that was my reaction, and rereading the thread I see that that's not true of any one post; it was my reaction to the thread as a whole. I'm guilty of projecting my own sensitivities! I apologize for misreading things. I also clearly misunderstand the true meaning of cultural relativism, as my understanding of that term was the, er, shallow sense that you described in your first paragraph. So, off to Wikipedia for further reading.

Interesting, about the use of "ethnic" as a term - I used to teach from an ESL book that asked students what their favourite "ethnic" food was - well, this was a completely useless task, as what the book designated as "ethnic" food was to them, simply "food". This chapter drove me batty, and I was angered by the [White, Western] assumptions made. Especially in an ESL text! In the end, I simply taught the students that it meant food from countries or cultures not your own. I'm not sure if that was the best definition, but it got us through the unit. I think I'll go look up that thread!

Turnabout is fairplay, however, and the Koreans and Vietnamese I've talked to at length consider "Western" an ethnicity, and consider Western food to be hamburgers, pizza, spaghetti, cola, and so on; westerners eat this every day; which is why everyone there is so fat. I've had the hardest time trying to tell them that a) the west is very diverse (read: not just America) and b) people in the west eat different things every day. They do not eat hamburgers for lunch and pizza for dinner.

Overall, this thread is very interesting to me, as I have spent a lot of time in ethnic western stores in my years in Asia, and have found them to be in the same condition as similarly themed (imported, hard to find ingredients aimed at recent immigrants or expatriates) food stores in Canada.

[ludja]

The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."

←

I disagee. At least, that's not how I would interpret the terms. To me, the term "ethnic market" has always meant, very simply and just as the dictionary would seem to imply, a market that specifically caters to a particular group of people associated with a particular geographic derivation or ancestry. That would include, for example, the local Italian or Armenian or German or Polish or French (or whatever) markets that are largely run by, and cater to, caucasian persons. I've never understood "ethnic market" to mean "market catering to nonwhites," and I don't think that most other people do either.

←

I appreciate much of the other thoughtful posting on this thread, but must also say that I agree with the point Patrick S makes. "Ethnic" grocery would mean to me a grocery that carries items from another ("not American") culture or country. It is not a coded descriptor for skin color. For instance, where I grew up the most common ethnic groceries were Polish, Italian, Puerto Rican, and Austrian/German. (I guess in that time and place, "ethnic" could have been a code for Catholic by non-Catholics!)

That being said I can see Pan's and Khadija's point regarding the use of a term to "just lump" a bunch of dissimilar cultures and ethnicities together as "other". It may be better when possible to just use the actual descriptor. I guess as someone that grew up with a strong "ethnic" identity I don't see anything negative about the term so when I use it I don't feel it is a negative descriptor. My family *did* come from another country. That *does* give us a different viewpoint and experience from Americans that have been here for at least a few generations.

Regarding cleanliness in markets which focus on produce from other countries and cultures (err.... ethnic markets) I've seen the whole gamut of markets from nicely clean and pleasant, which is different than the sterility of a large chain supermakert, to very grungy. I would definately mark the line for goods in which the packaging was compromised or for items with a shelf life that look tired or are stored very improperly. We have a bunch of Russian markets around here now and there is quite a difference in the cleanliness, care and general upkeep of the different establishments. I might buy preserved cherries in glass jars in all of the stores but I might not buy coldcuts or meat in some of them. I'm not interested in hyper-cleanliness or no dust--but it makes me wonder about the handling of non-sealed food items when for instance the floor looks like it has never been cleaned. I would apply the same standards to any market.

Edited May 17, 2006 by ludja (log)

[Philanthrophobe]

The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."

←

I disagee. At least, that's not how I would interpret the terms. To me, the term "ethnic market" has always meant, very simply and just as the dictionary would seem to imply, a market that specifically caters to a particular group of people associated with a particular geographic derivation or ancestry. That would include, for example, the local Italian or Armenian or German or Polish or French (or whatever) markets that are largely run by, and cater to, caucasian persons. I've never understood "ethnic market" to mean "market catering to nonwhites," and I don't think that most other people do either.

←

Although I absolutely understand that "ethnic" might be misunderstood as "non-white," I too equate it with "having roots more closely associated with other cultures." When I say "ethnic markets" as I did in my post upthread, I was specifically thinking about the Korean market, the Indian market, the Lebanese market, the Russian market (I forget which country), the two pan-Asian markets, and the Latino market I go to. (I actually have a route and hit them all on the same day.) And additionally, we're lucky enough to have a huge store here called International Marketplace: half the store is pan-Asian, and the other half, everything else not-U.S. So, yeah, I do use the phrase, "ethnic markets," but only to my husband when I tell him where I'm going. However, if I do use language that offends others (including my mom), I'd like to know about it. Ethnocentrism is a sneaky SOB.

But back to the question of unkempitude, most of the shabby/dirty markets I've seen were either A) in impoverished neighborhoods, or B) run by people occupying the lower end of the economic range. I've seen some pretty filthy 7-11s.

[NYC Mike]

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet is the goals of the owners of these businesses. Many, many small grocery stores are owned by people who are not necessarily interested in the food business.

Where I live, the Dominican owned bodegas make at least 80% of their revenue on beer, cigarettes, 5 for $1 platano, $1-$2 of cheese, salami etc and numbers. The corn flakes on the shelf came with the store when they bought it and normally has inches of dust on it.

-mike

[sanrensho]

One thing I'm curious about is the pervasiveness of terms like "ethnic market." Do people really use the term that often? I can't remember the last time that the word "ethnic" even popped out of my mouth. "Vietnamese/Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hispanic market" yes, "ethnic market" never.

For the same reason, I don't refer to "ethnic bakeries" or "ethnic restaurants."

[Bond Girl]

As a germ obsessed Taiwanese, I can say that shop keepers are not in the habit of paying better attention because culturally, the shopper didn't really care. When I was growing up, back in the stone ages, the Taiwanese didn't go to supermarkets or shops to buy their groceries, they go to markets and food stand, where displays are not possible. As everything is normally laid out on a blamket on the floor, dusting is really a moot point.

Having said that, years of shopping in American supermarkets have gotten me rather squimish about germs. I never bought into the "your immune system should take care of that" argument. I am infamous for shopping at places that charges 2 to 3 times the prices I would be paying at Chinatown, just to feel that I get cleaner groceries.

[SuzySushi]

One thing I'm curious about is the pervasiveness of terms like "ethnic market." Do people really use the term that often? I can't remember the last time that the word "ethnic" even popped out of my mouth. "Vietnamese/Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Hispanic market" yes, "ethnic market" never.

For the same reason, I don't refer to "ethnic bakeries" or "ethnic restaurants."

←

No, I don't use "ethnic market" to describe a single store that carries products from a single (or even several) nationalities/cultures, cuisines. I'm using it here as a kind of shorthand to distinguish a grouping of what Ludja notes means a

grocery that carries items from another ("not American") culture or country.

[russ parsons]

to a certain extent, there are also cultural prejudices about foods that come into play. i'm not talking about flies buzzing around, or anything like that, but i've noticed that in mexican markets in la, the meat is always darker in color. their customers prefer meat that has a slightly oxided appearance, as opposed to the bright red "freshness" we get from shrink wrapping.

On the other hand, i still shake my head when i go into some chinese markets and see absolutely beautiful, pristine fish sitting on ice right next to something that looks like it should have been embalmed two weeks ago.

[Pan]

The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."

←

I disagee. At least, that's not how I would interpret the terms. To me, the term "ethnic market" has always meant, very simply and just as the dictionary would seem to imply, a market that specifically caters to a particular group of people associated with a particular geographic derivation or ancestry. That would include, for example, the local Italian or Armenian or German or Polish or French (or whatever) markets that are largely run by, and cater to, caucasian persons. I've never understood "ethnic market" to mean "market catering to nonwhites," and I don't think that most other people do either.

←

This is one of the things that was discussed in the older thread I linked above. I think the reason it comes up is that, just as "non-ethnic" is an unmarked (though unspoken) category in a country like the U.S., "white" is also an unmarked category here. By contrast, "ethnic" and "black" are marked categories. So it's not so much that "ethnic" really means "black" or "non-white" (I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that), but that both terms are used to mark categories. A supermarket that caters to "average Americans" is also ethnic because it reflects and caters to the ethnicity/-ies of its shoppers; but because the supermarket reflects a dominant or "mainstream" ethnicity, most Americans don't mark or take notice of that. It is as if we are too close to an object to see it in all its aspects. What this doesn't mean is that the term "ethnic" is offensive and anyone should feel a need to apologize for using it. Treating one's own culture and religion (or the culture and religion of the majority of the population or ruling class in one's own country or whatever) as an unmarked category is extremely common and a product of the enculturation that we experience as part of our upbringing.

I think the discussion of the meaning of the word "ethnic" may be a bit of a tangent in this thread, though. The thread I linked to is still open for more comments and discussion.

[Khadija]

Khadija,

Thanks for your clarification. I didn't mean to imply that you were being necessarily simplistic.  I was trying to clarify my feelings from my first post - I wanted to be perfectly clear that people in other countries have similar standards to ourselves; in my (humble) opinion it's not the culture that results in the dirty stores, it's other factors. And I just felt that some posts were offering explanations that suggested culture was part of it; and excused it for those reasons....but that was my reaction, and rereading the thread I see that that's not true of any one post; it was my reaction to the thread as a whole. I'm guilty of projecting my own sensitivities! I apologize for misreading things. I also clearly misunderstand the true meaning of cultural relativism, as my understanding of that term was the, er, shallow sense that you described in your first paragraph. So, off to Wikipedia for further reading. 

Interesting, about the use of "ethnic" as a term - I used to teach from an ESL book that asked students what their favourite "ethnic" food was - well, this was a completely useless task, as what the book designated as "ethnic" food was to them, simply "food". This chapter drove me batty, and I was angered by the [White, Western] assumptions made. Especially in an ESL text! In the end, I simply taught the students that it meant food from countries or cultures not your own. I'm not sure if that was the best definition, but it got us through the unit. I think I'll go look up that thread!

Turnabout is fairplay, however, and the Koreans and Vietnamese I've talked to at length consider "Western" an ethnicity, and consider Western food to be hamburgers, pizza, spaghetti, cola, and so on; westerners eat this every day; which is why everyone there is so fat. I've had the hardest time trying to tell them that a) the west is very diverse (read: not just America) and b) people in the west eat different things every day. They do not eat hamburgers for lunch and pizza for dinner.

Overall, this thread is very interesting to me, as I have spent a lot of time in ethnic western stores in my years in Asia, and have found them to be in the same condition as similarly themed (imported, hard to find ingredients aimed at recent immigrants or expatriates) food stores in Canada.

←

No problem, nakji. Like many other philosophers, I think I tend to get too overheated when the subject of cultural relativism comes up.

I think your point about considering "Western" to be an ethnicity is very interesting. Once, I lived in a house with two people from China, who were in Canada for the first time (as grad students). It was a funny experience. My mom is Chinese and my dad British. I usually don't self-identify as white, although I usually don't self-identify as Chinese either. My roomates definitely did not think I was Chinese. They didn't think Canadian-Born-Chinese (CBCs (or ABCs for American-Born-Chinese) were Chinese either, but they did not think I was a CBC. They thought I was Canadian, which meant Western, which meant white. They would regularly observe my behaviour and make comments about "the Canadian way" of doing this and that. Most of their observations had to do with cooking and eating habits, since we usually only saw eachother when we were in the kitchen. A lot of what they observed were my personal habits (the bread I ate was always very heavy German monastery bread). They also observed habits I had in virtue of being a student (I would make a bunch of dishes on weekends and freeze them in individual servings for quick meals). No matter how many times I told them that my eating habits were not representative of Canadians' eating habits, they would not stop referring to the way I did things as "the Canadian way." One of them would always say that "Canadians are fat because they like sweet food, and Chinese are not fat because they don't eat sweet food." She kept boxes of Oreos in her bedroom, and I never touched a sweet. I was thinner than her. She didn't ever stop saying this. Some of them adopted my "Canadian" custom of making homeade frozen dinners, as it turned out to be very useful in their own student lives.

[sanrensho]

No, I don't use "ethnic market" to describe a single store that carries products from a single (or even several) nationalities/cultures, cuisines. I'm using it here as a kind of shorthand to distinguish a grouping of what Ludja notes means a

grocery that carries items from another ("not American") culture or country.

Well, I think this illustrates how the use of "ethnic" as broad shorthand can say more about the speaker using it than the subject. For instance, as a Canadian, I don't consider any one culture as "non-Canadian" as much as I see how many cultures have had their imprint on the fabric of our country. I don't see it in "us" or "them" terms, so "ethnic" has limited usefulness in my vocabulary.

Back to my original point, though. I still have problems with making generalizations about "dirty ethnic ____." Suzy, do you happen to live in Honolulu or Oahu? There are indeed some grungy markets in downtown Honolulu, yet not far away there is an "ethnic" Daiei supermarket (I would just call it a "Japanese supermarket") that is as clean as any mainstream market found elsewhere in Oahu.

Edited May 17, 2006 by sanrensho (log)

[Busboy]

I was trying to figure out if my neighborhood's Korean-owned, Salvadoran-staffed grocery stores selling Latin, Asian and Ethiopian foods to yuppies, African-Americans, Vietnamese and, apparently (somebody's buying the injera), the occasional African, and which can be a bit funky at times were in fact "ethnic" or even "multi-ethnic," when it occurred to me that the kind of stores that launched this thread might be better identified as "low-income" or "downscale."

I'm sure we've all been in the kind of stores that SuzySushi references. Anyone ever been in one where the clientel looked like they had the same average income as a typical suburban Safeway's customers? And, who's typically running these places? A family that borrowed heavily to get the doors open is likely supporting recently arrived relatives with few job skills, or maybe a couple of kids in Med School.

There's no money for new lighting or new paint. The aisles are narrow. You can see a couple of layers of linoleum where where it's worn through. And the cash flow demands that that dented can has to sit on the shelf until it sells. The place just looks less appetizing (by upscale U.S. standards, many of us do love our holes in the wall).

And the meat and fish setting out on ice or in the counter -- not shrink wrapped and vacuum packed -- so the natural decline of perfectly good stuff in a small, small place lends a certain smell to the air, one we don't associate with the sanitized supermarkets of our (U.S.) youth.

Whether or not the differences are good or bad, or both, they clearly exist, and touch people at a visceral level, regardless of what they would like, or like to believe.

[Sugarella]

The conventional Western terms "ethnic" and "generic" are culturally biased, because they are meant to distinguish between things that are "not white" and things that are "white."

←

I disagee. At least, that's not how I would interpret the terms. To me, the term "ethnic market" has always meant, very simply and just as the dictionary would seem to imply, a market that specifically caters to a particular group of people associated with a particular geographic derivation or ancestry. That would include, for example, the local Italian or Armenian or German or Polish or French (or whatever) markets that are largely run by, and cater to, caucasian persons. I've never understood "ethnic market" to mean "market catering to nonwhites," and I don't think that most other people do either.

←

Well, I was all set to totally agree with PatrickS that "ethnic" simply means of or pertaining to a particular group, and that the word is commonly used when referring to any group other than your own (like me being Hungarian/British Canadian would make me ethnic anywhere outside of Hungary, Britain or Canada, yes?). So off I went to dictionary.com to double-check the meaing of ethnic and boy did I get a rude awakening:

eth-nic (adj)

  1.    1. Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage.

        2. Being a member of a particular ethnic group, especially belonging to a national group by heritage or culture but residing outside its national boundaries: ethnic Hungarians living in northern Serbia.

        3. Of, relating to, or distinctive of members of such a group: ethnic restaurants; ethnic art.

  2. Relating to a people not Christian or Jewish; heathen.

Er.... ok....

So obviously "ethnic" is not so innocuous after all, at least to some people.

But back on topic......

....I think busboy got it right with this bit.....

I was trying to figure out if my neighborhood's Korean-owned, Salvadoran-staffed grocery stores selling Latin, Asian and Ethiopian foods to yuppies, African-Americans, Vietnamese and, apparently (somebody's buying the injera), the occasional African, and which can be a bit funky at times were in fact "ethnic" or even "multi-ethnic," when it occurred to me that the kind of stores that launched this thread might be better identified as "low-income" or "downscale."

←

I've been to plenty of markets in plenty of places that could be described as ethnic, (erm....the first definition up there) some being very clean and some not. I can agree that mom and pop type places that've probably been operating on a shoestring budget since they opened (and opened on a shoestring budget as well, for that matter) where you can clearly see the owners as the ones working the cash registers all day every day, it's pretty safe to say that there is no time and no money to actually hire someone to keep things clean. Things get put on shelves and they don't get touched again until someone buys them. (or until some grubby customer comes along and damages the packaging and puts it back on the shelf...and nobody in management notices.)

It's also pretty fair to say that ethnic shops or any small markets are small private enterprises whereas supermarkets of course are corporations, and that of course corporations should be held to higher standards by health departments and the general public alike.

[sanrensho]

The more that I think about it, the more I prefer "international market(s)."

"Ethnic market" obviously invites some misunderstanding judging by the number of posts here that try to hone in on its precise meaning, so there is obviously a better way to describe it. (I'm not trying to be PC here, so much as I prefer precise language that invites minimal misinterpretation.)