Either way, the Japanese deserve to have their culture appropriated so this is great.
I choose to believe, despite having read the article, that Australian sushi is just a bunch of still-living extremely poisonous animals served alongside a beer.
I think there is an argument to be made for names being specific to products made in a certain place. The most prominent example I can think of is champagne being specific to the region in France. Lots of other alcohols, particularly spirits, such as Scotch and Irish whisky do this as well. I’m sure that most people don’t actually care but for specialist products selling to people who do care I think it makes sense to reserve the label and just call the local imitation something else.
This is nonsense. Burgers are sold in damn near every country. The US is full of Americanized taco places and tex mex restaurants. We have “Chinese food” buffets that stock American versions of Chinese foods. We eat Pad Thai thinking it’s a popular Thai dish when really it’s just something they thought Americans would like. US has pubs that serve “fish and chips”. There are French restaurants, Mongolian restaurants, Afghani restaurants… McDonald’s sells spaghetti in Vietnam.
We all eat each other’s foods. What is different about Australians having their own version of sushi? This seems entirely unremarkable.
For a lot of the things you mention, one of the distinctions is that many of the foods were created by said ethicity, but adapted the cooking techniques and ingredients to the local pallet.
Edit: im not defending either side (i believe the chef is of japanese origin) its just there is a distinction between adapted foods and ones that arent.
This is nonsense. Burgers are sold in damn near every country.
Except Americans will only call it a ‘burger’ if it’s a beef patty and garnish on a burger bun. What we call a chicken burger, they call a chicken sandwich - which is ludicrous because a sandwich is something between two slices of bread, not two halves of a bun. Heck, the even call Subway’s fare ‘sandwiches’.
What’s crazy is americans will eat a vege burger, a mushroom burger, pork, lamb, turkey patties etc… all burgers. but as soon as you put fried chicken in it is suddenly becomes a sandwitch?
When I called my husband’s breakfast “grain stew” he got all precious about it. Apparently cooked oats in milk is called “oatmeal”, and I’m wrong, but it’s just stuff cooked in liquid? That’s stew.
It must be ground, formed into a patty, grilled, and served on a bun. All those examples follow that formula, the protein itself is of secondary importance (although if no protein is specified then beef is assumed).
A piece of fried chicken is not ground and formed into a patty, and thus cannot qualify.
I think there is an argument to be made for names being specific to products made in a certain place. The most prominent example I can think of is champagne being specific to the region in France. Lots of other alcohols, particularly spirits, such as Scotch and Irish whisky do this as well. I’m sure that most people don’t actually care but for specialist products selling to people who do care I think it makes sense to reserve the label and just call the local imitation something else.
I just wanna eat my Philadelphia rolls with Norwegian salmon in peace… plus, I don’t think cultural appropriation, in this context, is necessarily malicious or so, now that I’ve read the article…
The way people use words online is so debate brained. Cultural appropriation isn’t inherently bad. It’s just a thing that exists and holds connotations about an imbalance of exchange. Is aussie style sushi not still considered Japanese food? Like, we have california rolls, but no one says they’re eating Californian food while eating sushi.
No. That photo misses the whole point. The article is talking about these, which are common in Australia. You normally buy 3-4 of them and that’s a quick lunch on the go.
this is the biggest reach I’ve seen since…well a bunch of mayo criminals reached australia
this entire thing just feels like settlers being butthurt that they a) have none of the history/tradition of the old world and b) unlike america, don’t even have any recently found pop culture relevance to offset the former
There’s plenty of Aboriginal and even some trivial white Australian culture, claiming a certain shape of sushi is not that (not even Americans do this, and the few that do “Detroit pizza” are rightfully made fun of and bullied)
Australian sushi is a thick hand roll made from half a standard sheet of nori. Its shape is distinct from Japanese temaki hand rolls, which are often cone-shaped, as well as from futomaki thick rolls, which are similar in shape but usually served sliced.
so it’s literally just unsliced sushi lol. It’s not even like some characteristic ingredient, like with California Rolls and Philadelphia rolls using avocado/cream cheese (which are def not Japanese)
And that’s literally what we call it (or “hand rolls”). Until this article, I’ve never seen the term “Australian Sushi”. I can see how you’d market it that way in New York though, to make them novel/stand out.
The guy writing the article is moderately famous in Australia as a Japanese-Australian TV personality.
I think I remember Nina Oyama saying something similar, but in a “hey this is amusingly uniquely Australian, I’m Japanese and have been to America” not “this is cultural appropriation” way.
there’s a type of brainworm unique to many anglos where they have to be as special and different as possible when there’s LITERALLY NOTHING THERE
"hmmm…I could try learning about or even promoting idk one of the cultures of Africa or India or China (or indigenous Australian, American etc cultures) with thousands of years of tradition that literally nobody outside of those continents even knows exists, but nah I’m going to take sushi and call it Australian because I’m a special snowflake and I’m jealous that the other anglo settlers across the pacific have more clout "
I think we can all agree as a society that as far as cultural sensitivity goes, food is off limits. You eat what you want how you want it and no one has the right to stop you. Yes they are allowed to think gross or no way I’d never eat that but there should also be respect for each other as individuals with different preferences. Personally I take the same view with sexuality and kinks, I don’t have to like it and I’m allowed to be grossed out a bit but at the end of the day people do what makes them happy and they’re no less caring, funny or thoughtful than the next person.
I’ve heard people claim cultural appropriation over this or that, but I’m not convinced it’s a real thing, and not just people being offended on behalf of someone else.
That’s not to say that cultures don’t get appropriated, but is that a bad thing? White people rocking dreadlocks, cool. Black people sporting a kimono, nice. Asian people with Klan robes, what.
We live in a culturally interconnected global community now, no group has ownership over aesthetics.
That’s not to say that cultures don’t get appropriated, but is that a bad thing? White people rocking dreadlocks, cool. Black people sporting a kimono, nice. Asian people with Klan robes, what.
♬ One of these things is not like the other ~ One of these things is actually bad ♬
Not wrong lol. Australian humour is a very tricky thing to understand for outsiders.
I was once accused of being racist for telling a story about how I joked that my black friend didn’t need sunscreen.
Unless you understand how Aussie humour works, you won’t understand that I’m actually saying “I don’t give a shit about what colour your skin is”.
For the uninitiated, much of Aussie humour revolves around how much you can “take-the-piss” meaning, “I know where your boundaries are, and I’ll show you that I respect you by walking up to that line, but not crossing it”.
Was at the beach with some mates and had some sunblock, after I SlipSlopSlapped, I asked if my black mate if he wanted some, then quickly corrected myself saying “nah you’re alright, anyone else?”
He had a chuckle and said “fuck you”, then I gave him the tube because black people still get sunburned.
Cultural Appropriation is real, but it usually refers to entire nations or massive artists or corporations adopting a caricature of smaller cultures, to the extent that people start associating it with that nation or artist rather than the culture. An example here is Picasso using African imagery, or pop stars copying underground music genres and effectively killing them off.
The problem is that people use it to talk about regular people starting a Sushi restaurant or whatever. They do not have the power to do this sort of thing.
Fair enough. It reminds me of the whole conversation about critical race theory. It isn’t what most people think it is, and is reserved for discussions regarding much more nuanced understandings.
I still think it’s hard to distinguish whether something is, or isn’t cultural appropriation. Where is the line between inspiration and a knock-off?
Where is the line between inspiration and a knock-off?
So firstly, just like critical race theory, cultural appropriation is meant to be analysis. Fixing it doesn’t just mean “OK guys don’t do a cultural appropriation”, it’s meant to explain why cultures can lose their identity, and how they struggle.
A big part of the analysis is the power differential. One of the problems is that the culture is more associated with the trope than the real culture. It’s a very large and powerful community (or individual) taking art from a small community. It’s Taylor Swift using a drawing to promote her songs, not paying for it, and asking the artist to be glad she gave her the attention. It’s Britney Spears (IIRC) making a pop song using ideas from an online subgenre and not crediting it, causing the subgenre to implode.
While there are people who are too trigger happy with the term, and a sizable gray area between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation, I do think there are cases where people cross over into objectionable cultural appropriation.
A really good example was when white American college students wore fake native American headwear with significant cultural and spiritual importance as decoration for drunken parties. I can definitely sympathize with native Americans not wanting their culture treated with disrespect.
Maybe it’s just may way of looking at things, but I think for something to be culturally appropriated, it would need to be done with sincerity.
Ironically dressing up in Native-American headwear for a frat-party doesn’t seem like cultural appropriation, just kinda fucked up (like doing blackface).
Yeah, blackface is fucked up. And using spiritually significant indigenous clothing to go butt chug booze is fucked up. I think the difference is that blackface was never part of black culture. It was part of white culture. The appropriation part comes from the fact that it’s crossing cultural boundaries.
From what I’ve heard, plenty of black folks are mad about white people with dreadlocks because black people have been penalised for having locs for so long and along comes the dominant culture saying “actually that’s cool and we’re gonna make it cool, but you still look like shit”.
Same with the fox eye trend that non Asians did for a bit, when Asian kids were forever bullied for having eyes like that.
Cultural sharing? Excellent. Cultural appropriation where one culture is plundered for anything of value and that culture is also denied acceptance for having those same characteristics? Not so good.
I understand that, but the people who were mad about those things were the fringe, most people didn’t give a shit.
From what I remember, dreadlocks are a Caribbean thing, but the African-American population had adopted them.
There’s a case to be made, based on what you’re saying, that there’s no issue because the African-American population weren’t being oppressive.
However, Identity Politics is the most boring game in town. To judge who is culturally appropriating and who isn’t is to assume a persons entire history based on the colour of their skin, which is, you know…
Cultural appropriation is such a strange issue. It’s obvious to me that wearing someone’s culture as a costume is fucked up… And it’s pretty obvious too I think that opening a restaurant selling food from overseas is almost always cultural exchange… I don’t really think you can open a restaurant without a solid understanding of the food you’re making (quite unlike putting on a headdress and getting hammered on Halloween)… Somewhere in between there’s a line, perhaps, but I have absolutely no idea where it is. White people with dreads is in there somewhere, no one seems to agree on it, personally I think it’s pretty far removed from its origins and is basically a white hippy thing in it’s own right, regardless of how it began, but I know a lot of people disagree.
As a mexican, I dont mind people dressing as mexican for carneval, or making variations of mexican food, as long as they aren’t anti mexican, and I think that’s where the line is drawn. A culture dont get to “steal” other culture things and also not want them living with them.
That’s reasonable. I suppose there’s something distinct in the “costume” based on how significant the cultural garb is. I don’t know much about mexican culture so correct me if I’m wrong, but is the stereotypical sombrero/poncho combination more a product of convenience and weather than culture? Contrasting with the Native American headdress or Hindu bindi which are culturally significant in (I believe) a different way.
I do agree that the poncho and sombrero are not really a mexican cultural thing (although the shape and colors make it specific to mexico on top of drawing a (mexican) mustache). Like I said, I dont mind it, just don’t be anti mexican, and this applies to other cultures too.
It’s a complex and multi-layered topic, as I alluded to in my previous comment, but I’ll do my best to answer this. I’m by no means an expert on this, and I’m a white English dude so far from qualified really… But I have read a lot on the topic in addition to my own gut reactions to these things.
So… First let me clarify that by “wearing someone else’s culture as a costume” I am really talking specifically about people in wealthy Western countries wearing the cultural clothing of (almost always) historically colonised peoples from elsewhere. With that being said the first point to call attention to is a kind of dry economic one - the outfits you see being worn as a Halloween costumer are broadly mass produced by companies with no affiliation to the cultures they are imitating. They make huge amounts of money selling these costumes to Westerners like me, while giving nothing back to the people they’ve taken them from. This follows a long and difficult history especially in the context of colonies - historically (not at all that this doesn’t continue today) the West has plundered the world for all its worth, and this is just a relatively subtle modern example. So even before anyone puts the costume on I’m uneasy about it, personally.
The second point is specific to certain cultural garbs which are ‘closed’ within the cultures they come from. While the other reply points out that they, as a Mexican, don’t mind seeing people dressed up in Mexican costume, you would be very hard pressed to find anyone Native American who is happy seeing anyone in a mass produced war bonnet. I won’t pretend to understand the full significance of the headdress, but its well known that it is not something you just ‘put on’ if you are a Native American, and divorcing it from that cultural context both cheapens it and shows a general lack of respect towards the people whose clothing you’re wearing.
I think that lack of respect is really the main part of my problem with costume-ising culturally significant clothing. Obviously there are clothes from all over the world which are just clothes, and quite likely the people who make those clothes would be delighted to see them being worn all over the world! But if you don’t give enough of a shit to a) learn about the culture they come from and what the significance is and b) buy them from the actual people who created them, then you lose that connection and it ceases to be cultural exchange and becomes instead appropriation.
you would be very hard pressed to find anyone Native American who is happy seeing anyone in a mass produced war bonnet.
I’d argue this is the exception, especially due to the history specific to the location where this kind of costume is common. Admittedly I come from a mixed East Asian background so my bias is based on people calling out appropriation for ao dais and kimonos and the like.
To me it seems like you’re misattributing your reaction to those wearing the costume. I disagree that a person wearing a costume has the onus to research its history. That should be on the producer/retailer.
I also disagree that a consumer should buy from the source. It’s a lot of effort and responsibility you’re placing on someone that likely has no intent for offense, when it’s simply easier and more reasonable to understand the context of the wearer and realise it’s not really an issue.
TIL Australian Sushi is a thing! It never occurred to me that they don’t have the easy to hold rolls in other parts of the world. I think they make up like 10% of my diet haha.
TIL too… I’m still not sure I understand what non Australian sushi is though. I just figured ‘authentic’ sushi would be what we have but with higher quality ingredients or potentially cut into slices to be easier to eat with chopsticks
Sushi more refers to the vinegared rice in the dish. What we have here in Australia is actually made in Japan, but only really popular in certain parts of the country at certain festivals etc. They do make handrolls, but as you suggested, they are cut into pieces.
Add comment