'Inauthentic' cuisine worse than the Holocaust, say Oberlin College students

[Metaphor]

Okay, so I decided to Godwin right from the start, but this is so ridiculous, so absurd, so ludicrous, so mind-bogglingly insane I feel my satirical thread title is justified, because the story reads as indistinguishable from satire.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...tudents-cultural-appropriation_n_8846050.html

Students at an American liberal arts college have accused university authorities of “insensitivity” and “cultural appropriation” over the serving of General Tso's chicken, Vietnamese sandwiches and sushi.

A report in the ‘Oberlin Review,’ newspaper of Oberlin College in Ohio, details student angst over the cafeteria’s serving of inauthentic international cuisine, with scholars demanding meetings with campus officials over the outrage.

Complaints against ‘Bon Appétit,’ the college's food management company, include serving undercooked sushi rice, and cooked sushi fish instead of raw;

The nerve!

offering General Tso's chicken that was steamed, not fried;

The cheek!

selling Vietnamese banh mi with pulled pork rather than grilled and using ciabatta instead of traditional French bread.

The chutzpah!

“The undercooked rice and lack of fresh fish is disrespectful,” scorned Japanese student Tomoyo Joshi of the sushi bar, decrying the counter as “a culturally appropriative sustenance system.”

The effrontery!

“When you're cooking a country's dish for other people, including ones who have never tried the original dish before, you're also representing the meaning of the dish as well as its culture,” she told the newspaper. “So if people not from that heritage take food, modify it and serve it as 'authentic,' it is appropriative.”

The audacity!

The sushi also caused disquiet for student Mai Miyagaki, who called for “collaboration with the cultural student [organisations] before starting new stuff like this [the sushi bar].”

Disgusted that a Vietnamese sandwich was being served with coleslaw instead of pickled vegetables, student Diep Nguyn said: “It was ridiculous… how could they just throw out something completely different and label it as another country’s traditional food?”

The cajones!

College officials told the newspaper the dishes were an attempt at nutritional diversity and they would set up a meeting with students in the coming weeks. Oberlin College is best know for being the alma mater of author and actress Lena Dunham.

Ha! How did this white girl not take her own life from guilt after all the crushingly oppressive inauthenticity?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

As a white man, I don't feel I can comment on this as I'm too busy slashing my own wrists in order to apologize to the rest of the world for being responsible for this.

 

[thebeave]

Outrage over "inauthentic food" is superpopular among the college snowflakes these days. Oberlin is not the first. Clemson went through this recently with their "Maximum Mexican" food themed dinner in their cafeteria:

[video]http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6873[/video]

“This is something that Clemson Dining has done for years without any sort of backlash. People love the cultural nights in the dining halls,” Pendergist said. “What's next? Are they going to take away all potato based food as to not offend students from Irish decent? Remove the stir fry station so Asian-American students don't feel as if they are being misrepresented? When does it end?”

As I understand it, only oatmeal and tap water will be served from now on in the Clemson cafeterias so as not to offend anyone. It should be noted that there was one student who expressed outrage over the image of the Quaker Oats man on the oatmeal box (it perpetuated hostile and offensive stereotypes about true Quakers' appearance, according to the student), hence only Safeway brand oats from a plain brown box will be served.

 

[Arctish]

“Insensitivity” and “cultural appropriation” are the new catch-phrases for what used to be called "Americanization". I agree it's insensitive for Bon Appétit to take somebody's haute cuisine and present an inferior product under the same name, but I think a better description would be "false advertising".

 

[zorq]

I think everyone feels disappointment when they fall victim to false and misleading advertising. Don't they?

When you order a tuna melt and there is no cheese, you complain. Because it's not what you ordered. When management insists that they gave you what you ordered, you have to ask what's wrong with them that they can be so damned wrong. Don't you?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The undercooked rice and lack of fresh fish is disrespectful

This seems to me to be a rather valid concern when you're dealing with sushi.

 

[Metaphor]

“Insensitivity” and “cultural appropriation” are the new catch-phrases for what used to be called "Americanization". I agree it's insensitive for Bon Appétit to take somebody's haute cuisine and present an inferior product under the same name, but I think a better description would be "false advertising".

Who decided that the product was inferior, or that what they did was false advertising?

If anything, serving "authentic" versions of dishes without warning in the Western world is false advertising. I don't want an 'authentic' version. I want the version I'm used to and expect.

 

[Metaphor]

The undercooked rice and lack of fresh fish is disrespectful

This seems to me to be a rather valid concern when you're dealing with sushi.

Why is it a 'concern'?

Sushi (rolls) are very popular in Australia. I would say 1% of rolls sold have raw fish in them. I say 1% but it might be less; I have never seen a sushi roll sold in Australia that has raw fish.

So, why isn't someone angry at the self-hating Japanese sushi makers who destroy and rape their culture to make money from the white devil?

 

[Arctish]

“Insensitivity” and “cultural appropriation” are the new catch-phrases for what used to be called "Americanization". I agree it's insensitive for Bon Appétit to take somebody's haute cuisine and present an inferior product under the same name, but I think a better description would be "false advertising".

Who decided that the product was inferior, or that what they did was false advertising?

If anything, serving "authentic" versions of dishes without warning in the Western world is false advertising. I don't want an 'authentic' version. I want the version I'm used to and expect.

The people who know what the names mean are the ones deciding that the product is inferior and the advertising is false, because it is and it is.

Take for example the banh mi described in the OP. It has the wrong kind of pork on the wrong kind of bread with the wrong kind of vinegar infused vegetables. If the food service called it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich, that wouldn't be a problem. But calling it banh mi is false advertising because it isn't banh mi.

Suppose you ordered a grilled cheese sandwich and they served you a microwaved Kaiser roll with tofu spread. Would that be okay?

 

[Metaphor]

The people who know what the names mean are the ones deciding that the product is inferior and the advertising is false, because it is and it is.

No, those people are not calling it 'false advertising', they are calling it cultural appropriation, which is not even wrong because 'cultural appropriation' is incoherent jibberish.

They can call the product 'inferior' if they want. That's how reviewing movies or music or restaurants or hotel rooms works: you get to state your opinion and the reasons for it. But what they absolutely cannot do is decide for everyone else that it's inferior.

They can call it 'false advertising' if they want, but that doesn't mean it was false, or even advertising. If they had an expectation, that does not mean their expectation was reasonable.

And if they really felt they were misled, they can demand their $5 back. But what they can't do is demand that the food supplier stop supplying something they don't like.

Take for example the banh mi described in the OP. It has the wrong kind of pork on the wrong kind of bread with the wrong kind of vinegar infused vegetables. If the food service called it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich, that wouldn't be a problem. But calling it banh mi is false advertising because it isn't banh mi.

Ludicrous. If most people don't know what 'authentic' banh mi is supposed to be, then there is no possibility of false advertising. It's like calling the sandwich a 'jazznit shoo'.

Suppose you ordered a grilled cheese sandwich and they served you a microwaved Kaiser roll with tofu spread. Would that be okay?

Okay for whom? That restaurant would either close down pretty quickly if people thought they were being misled. So, if I were given what you say, I'd demand my money back and so would a lot of other people.

But if you're going to go down the 'false advertising' track, as I've already said, certain foods sold in the West come with certain expectations that are often different from whatever trumped-up 'authentic' versions claim to be.

In Australia, "Asian" restaurants will sell Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc, etc, etc. I have no idea, nor do I care, if the dishes taste anything like what the 'authentic' version should be. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if these restaurants adapt their recipes to suit the market, then that is a good thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Speaking of false advertising, this thread advertised some hyperbole about a Holocaust message.

This thread is appropriating the notion of real issues.

 

[laughing dog]

Speaking of false advertising, this thread advertised some hyperbole about a Holocaust message.

This thread is appropriating the notion of real issues.

QFT

 

[Arctish]

No, those people are not calling it 'false advertising', they are calling it cultural appropriation, which is not even wrong because 'cultural appropriation' is incoherent jibberish.

They can call the product 'inferior' if they want. That's how reviewing movies or music or restaurants or hotel rooms works: you get to state your opinion and the reasons for it. But what they absolutely cannot do is decide for everyone else that it's inferior.

They can call it 'false advertising' if they want, but that doesn't mean it was false, or even advertising. If they had an expectation, that does not mean their expectation was reasonable.

And if they really felt they were misled, they can demand their $5 back. But what they can't do is demand that the food supplier stop supplying something they don't like.

Not exactly. The students can demand that the vendor give accurate descriptions of the food being served, and the vendor will probably meet that demand. There's already an indication of that in the original Oberlin College article.

Take for example the banh mi described in the OP. It has the wrong kind of pork on the wrong kind of bread with the wrong kind of vinegar infused vegetables. If the food service called it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich, that wouldn't be a problem. But calling it banh mi is false advertising because it isn't banh mi.

Ludicrous. If most people don't know what 'authentic' banh mi is supposed to be, then there is no possibility of false advertising. It's like calling the sandwich a 'jazznit shoo'.

Not ludicrous. There are laws about calling your product by a misleading name and it doesn't matter if the misleading name is well known or obscure.

Take muktuk for example. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone knows what that name means. If I own a food cart and say I'm serving muktuk, the stuff I'm dishing up better contain whale blubber. If it doesn't then I've engaged in false advertising.

Suppose you ordered a grilled cheese sandwich and they served you a microwaved Kaiser roll with tofu spread. Would that be okay?

Okay for whom? That restaurant would either close down pretty quickly if people thought they were being misled. So, if I were given what you say, I'd demand my money back and so would a lot of other people.

But if you're going to go down the 'false advertising' track, as I've already said, certain foods sold in the West come with certain expectations that are often different from whatever trumped-up 'authentic' versions claim to be.

In Australia, "Asian" restaurants will sell Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc, etc, etc. I have no idea, nor do I care, if the dishes taste anything like what the 'authentic' version should be. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if these restaurants adapt their recipes to suit the market, then that is a good thing.

Students paying for a food plan at college can't just take their business elsewhere. They have their meals in the cafeteria, and they have to make their choices based on what the vendor says it is offering. Insisting that the descriptions of the food items match the actual food items isn't unreasonable.

If Bon Appétit doesn't offer an actual banh mi sandwich, then it shouldn't pretend what it offers is banh mi. It should stick to the truth and call it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich.

 

[Metaphor]

Speaking of false advertising, this thread advertised some hyperbole about a Holocaust message.

This thread is appropriating the notion of real issues.

If you're saying these students whinging about inauthenticity don't have a real gripe, I agree.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don't play stupid. We readers of the forum have limited resources and don't need bs threads like this one. We could be participating in other threads, which I will now go do.

 

[Metaphor]

Not exactly. The students can demand that the vendor give accurate descriptions of the food being served, and the vendor will probably meet that demand. There's already an indication of that in the original Oberlin College article.

And I'm telling you that an 'accurate description' does not mean 'authentic'. It means whatever people are used to.

Not ludicrous. There are laws about calling your product by a misleading name and it doesn't matter if the misleading name is well known or obscure.

And I'm telling you that the only way to mislead someone is to promise something and then give something else. You have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

Take muktuk for example. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone knows what that name means. If I own a food cart and say I'm serving muktuk, the stuff I'm dishing up better contain whale blubber. If it doesn't then I've engaged in false advertising.

And I call bullshit. If someone says they're serving sushi and they're in Australia, they are not falsely advertising their product, even when it contains fried breaded chicken instead of raw fish.

Students paying for a food plan at college can't just take their business elsewhere.

A food 'plan'? Were these students promised 'authentic' cuisine from a number of different countries? I don't believe you.

And, yes they can. They can certainly take their business elsewhere. I have two degrees and I can tell you that I could certainly have taken my 'eating lunch' business elsewhere.

They have their meals in the cafeteria, and they have to make their choices based on what the vendor says it is offering. Insisting that the descriptions of the food items match the actual food items isn't unreasonable.

They can see what is being offered. If they don't like it, they can shop somewhere else.

If Bon Appétit doesn't offer an actual banh mi sandwich, then it shouldn't pretend what it offers is banh mi. It should stick to the truth and call it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich.

You are remarkably naive to think that the perpetually offended would be sated by the words 'Vietnamese style'.

It is also remarkably offensive for those students, no matter what their nationality, to decide what is 'authentically' Vietnamese.

My mother made many dishes when me and my siblings were young; I have no idea how 'authentic' to our culture they were but it would show a fucking hide for someone else to say they were 'inauthentic' and my mother was falsely advertising.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This seems to me to be a rather valid concern when you're dealing with sushi.

Why is it a 'concern'?

Sushi (rolls) are very popular in Australia. I would say 1% of rolls sold have raw fish in them. I say 1% but it might be less; I have never seen a sushi roll sold in Australia that has raw fish.

So, why isn't someone angry at the self-hating Japanese sushi makers who destroy and rape their culture to make money from the white devil?

I was only half-serious, but sushi is considered an art form, so that's where I was going from.

 

[zorq]

And I'm telling you that an 'accurate description' does not mean 'authentic'. It means whatever people are used to.

Not ludicrous. There are laws about calling your product by a misleading name and it doesn't matter if the misleading name is well known or obscure.

And I'm telling you that the only way to mislead someone is to promise something and then give something else. You have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

Take muktuk for example. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone knows what that name means. If I own a food cart and say I'm serving muktuk, the stuff I'm dishing up better contain whale blubber. If it doesn't then I've engaged in false advertising.

And I call bullshit. If someone says they're serving sushi and they're in Australia, they are not falsely advertising their product, even when it contains fried breaded chicken instead of raw fish.

Students paying for a food plan at college can't just take their business elsewhere.

A food 'plan'? Were these students promised 'authentic' cuisine from a number of different countries? I don't believe you.

And, yes they can. They can certainly take their business elsewhere. I have two degrees and I can tell you that I could certainly have taken my 'eating lunch' business elsewhere.

They have their meals in the cafeteria, and they have to make their choices based on what the vendor says it is offering. Insisting that the descriptions of the food items match the actual food items isn't unreasonable.

They can see what is being offered. If they don't like it, they can shop somewhere else.

If Bon Appétit doesn't offer an actual banh mi sandwich, then it shouldn't pretend what it offers is banh mi. It should stick to the truth and call it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich.

You are remarkably naive to think that the perpetually offended would be sated by the words 'Vietnamese style'.

I don't know who you are referring to as the perpetually offended unless it's people like yourself. Take this Holocaust thread for example.

It is also remarkably offensive for those students, no matter what their nationality, to decide what is 'authentically' Vietnamese.

Case in point.

But really, when no Vietnamese restaurant in Vietnam serves coleslaw in any form. I think it's fair to say that coleslaw is an inauthentic ingredient in any dish labeled "Vietnamese." Just how far are you willing to argue this point? Words have meanings and I know that you would love to reinterpret any word's meaning to help justify your outrage at those darn youths who won't keep off your grass... but get a dictionary and figure it out.

My mother made many dishes when me and my siblings were young; I have no idea how 'authentic' to our culture they were but it would show a fucking hide for someone else to say they were 'inauthentic' and my mother was falsely advertising.

I don't know what "showing a fucking hide" means but if those imaginary people were telling you the truth and your mother's dishes were actually a disgusting parody of the ones she was trying to masquerade them as, are you saying that they should lie to you because the truth is unbearable to your ears?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know what "showing a fucking hide" means but if those imaginary people were telling you the truth and your mother's dishes were actually a disgusting parody of the ones she was trying to masquerade them as, are you saying that they should lie to you because the truth is unbearable to your ears?

They can say whatever they like, but one thing they have no right to do is prevent me or other people enjoying the food by getting it banned by force.

 

[Arctish]

And I'm telling you that an 'accurate description' does not mean 'authentic'. It means whatever people are used to.

I'm telling you I agree that an 'accurate description' does not mean 'authentic'. That's not in dispute.

Not ludicrous. There are laws about calling your product by a misleading name and it doesn't matter if the misleading name is well known or obscure.

And I'm telling you that the only way to mislead someone is to promise something and then give something else. You have no evidence when you promise something and then give something else. You have no evidence whatsoever that that is the case.

And I'm telling you I agree that one way to mislead people is to promise something and then give something else. The evidence this happened is contained in the OP. One example given is a banh mi being advertised but what was served was not a banh mi.

Take muktuk for example. It doesn't matter if hardly anyone knows what that name means. If I own a food cart and say I'm serving muktuk, the stuff I'm dishing up better contain whale blubber. If it doesn't then I've engaged in false advertising.

And I call bullshit. If someone says they're serving sushi and they're in Australia, they are not falsely advertising their product, even when it contains fried breaded chicken instead of raw fish.

I call bullshit on your calling bullshit. If I say I'm serving muktuk and I give people schmaltz instead, I have misled them. If I say I'm selling grilled cheese sandwiches and give them a microwaved Kaiser with tofu spread, I have misrepresented my product. If my customers complain, they have legitimate reason to do so because I'm not being honest about what I'm selling.

Students paying for a food plan at college can't just take their business elsewhere.

A food 'plan'? Were these students promised 'authentic' cuisine from a number of different countries? I don't believe you.

And, yes they can. They can certainly take their business elsewhere. I have two degrees and I can tell you that I could certainly have taken my 'eating lunch' business elsewhere.

They have their meals in the cafeteria, and they have to make their choices based on what the vendor says it is offering. Insisting that the descriptions of the food items match the actual food items isn't unreasonable.

They can see what is being offered. If they don't like it, they can shop somewhere else.

The students at my local university can't. There are very few restaurants within walking distance, none of them accept student food plan cards in payment, and none of them offer similar quantities of food at the discounted price the students get. The students here eat in the main cafeteria and make their choices based on what the vendors say they're offering. If the descriptions are inaccurate, the students have a legitimate gripe.

If Bon Appétit doesn't offer an actual banh mi sandwich, then it shouldn't pretend what it offers is banh mi. It should stick to the truth and call it a Vietnamese style pork sandwich.

You are remarkably naive to think that the perpetually offended would be sated by the words 'Vietnamese style'.

You are remarkable naïve to think you can determine who is or isn't perpetually offended just by reading an article in HuffPo.

It is also remarkably offensive for those students, no matter what their nationality, to decide what is 'authentically' Vietnamese.

My mother made many dishes when me and my siblings were young; I have no idea how 'authentic' to our culture they were but it would show a fucking hide for someone else to say they were 'inauthentic' and my mother was falsely advertising.

It doesn't matter how culturally authentic your mother's cooking was. It doesn't matter if she served you shit sandwiches. It doesn't matter if they were delicious. What matters is what she calls her sandwiches when she sells them to the public. If she calls them pate on croissants and serves up something that isn't pate and isn't on a croissant, her customers will undoubtedly complain. You can tout the authenticity of her cooking all you want, it's still false advertising.