So nothing can be described as Irish if it didn’t exist since the beginning of the earth on the land we could later call Ireland? Or where is the cutoff, the year 1400?
Comment on Hmmm
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Seeing that both vegetables were part of the Columbian exchange and therefore have no pre 1500 European roots it’s improper to call any potato preparation ‘Irish’.
GunnarGrop@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m just disputing the started fact that mashed pro is an Irish invention. There’s plenty of Irish things after that date, but that’s because people didn’t really think about ‘national’ things untill the late 19th century, take the Scottish tartan, fi (which was popularized by an English textile merchant btw).
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 day ago
You’re talking half a millennium ago…
Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
With that logic any Mexican dish that contains cumin, cilantro, wheat or any dairy product including cheese is not real Mexican.
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Cuisine is particularly evolutionary.
The question ‘what is Mexican’ is particularly dark in this context as the conquistadors managed to wipe it so much of it’s people and culture.
bryophile@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I only agree with this line of reasoning because you would have to conclude that the USA has no culture besides Native American culture and immigrant culture.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
You think cultures can’t change? Ireland was colonized by Britain. They forced them to grow potatoes. You don’t think that influenced Irish culture?
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I do think cultures can change. I only don’t think foodstuffs become a national thing that way. Like I said as a response in this thread that certainly the original population and culture of the Aztecs was almost completely destroyed.
The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English is a bit ironic, with a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, at least for me.
The appropriation of certain dishes as national is, in itself, a rather novel idea.
lugal@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
the Aztecs was almost completely destroyed.
How is this even relevant? I really don’t see any connection.
The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English is a bit ironic, with a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, at least for me.
How so? The potato was force upon them, not mashed potatoes specifically. It would be totally understandable if the Irish would choose to get rid of everything that has anything to do with the British. This happens to a degree that the language Gaelic is revitalized. But it’s not up to me as a foreigner who never set foot on Ireland to expect that from them. Potato is an important food item all over Europe. “The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English” is just an observation. You can’t dispute observations because they are “a bit ironic”. That’s not how history works.
The appropriation of certain dishes as national is, in itself, a rather novel idea.
How is this even an argument for your side? Nations are a social construct developed long after Columbus. By saying, anything that came after the 1400s can’t be part of a national identity, you are implying that nations exist since for ever.
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think that we do not disagree in most points.
My argument is in line with ‘the invention of tradition’ of Eric Hobsbawn and ‘imagined communities’ by Benedict Anderson in that most ‘national identity and tradition’ is an actively put forward construct that is really not as ancient as it purports.
The ownership of national dishes is what I argue against, the one in this thread that elicited my response was that of mashed potatoes being an Irish dish. If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
So no disagreement in that matter, I would say.
The Aztec argument is about what is fundamentally Mexican and the tragedy of that civilization being wiped out. This is another example that traditionalism about culture is a rather silly position to hold in an argument.
But if you re read the thread I think you’ll find that
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 day ago
What and marinara sauce isn’t Italian? Mapo tofu isn’t chinese? Modern sushi isn’t japananese?
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Italian cuisine is particularly enjoyable for this. The carbonara sauce was an improvisation by an American army cook, and one of the first recipes had it made with cream.
And part off modern sushi is Norwegian, as they had an excess of salmon they kind of imposed the idea to use it on sushi, which worked.
Chilly peppers in Indian cuisine where introduced by the Portugese
Cuisine is one of the most fusion sensitive bits of culture out there and most claims of originality are bogus in a way.
Barley_Man@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I don’t think a dish has to be 100% original from the domestication of the species of the ingredients all the way to the invention of the dish. I would say it’s valid to claim a variation of a dish with just one tiny tweak. Norwegians can’t claim the entirety of sushi but they are totally valid in claiming specifically salmon sushi. The French can’t claim to have invented neither wheat, flour, bread, the baking of bread in ovens or any of the other steps it took in-between, but they can claim the baguette specifically as a French bread.
Akasazh@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t think any food type can be claimed by a nation, that idea is very novel. You talk about bread and I think about the quintessential Italian ciabatta bread, which was invented in the 1990’s.
But I do really enjoy experiencing different cultures. I don’t subscribe to the idea of ownership of any of it by any country or culture. That is all.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This reminds me of working in a brewery/restaurant kitchen in the middle of a rich Midwestern suburb (read: white as white gets), we wanted to do teriyaki wings. Instead of letting us make our own sauce, our idiot manager brought in a premade sauce made by a Chinese company in “the Korean style”. So it was a Chinese-made Korean-style Japanese-American sauce. Fucking what? Especially silly considering real teriyaki sauce is just four very easily attainable ingredients in more-or-less equal parts.
sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I wish to know this four ingredient teriyaki recipe.
PapaStevesy@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
Soy sauce, sugar, sake, and mirin.. Garlic, ginger, chili, etc are all excellent additions, but aren’t necessary traditional. But as is kind of the main theme of this comment section’s discussion, nothing’s really “traditional” until thousands of people have done it thousands of different ways and enough time passes to be able to put it into some kind of historical and often geographic context. That is to say, I’m just a white guy on the Internet who’s done a fairly shallow amount of research into this subject, so definitely don’t take my word as teriyaki gospel.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Ginger, garlic, soysauce, brown sugar.
You flavor a neutral oil with the ginger and garlic (don’t burn), add the brown sugar, caramelize, add water or mirin or cooking wine slowly until desired thickness. You can do cornstarch slurry to dilute the flavor while maintaining the thickness.
Slovene85@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Lol
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Shut up, let me enjoy my bananana in peace.