Yes, ‘Australian sushi’ exists. Get over it, argues Adam Liaw
Yes, ‘Australian sushi’ exists. Get over it, argues Adam Liaw
An Aussie woman was called a “coloniser” for opening a NY shop selling Australian sushi. But Adam Liaw says it’s very much a thing – and anyone who disagrees simply hasn’t done their homework.
If Australian Sushi is cultural appropriation, I'd love to hear this person justify "New York Pizza".
New York Pizza is famous globally and recognised as something different to Italian style Pizza. Is that also cultural appropriation?
culture is a thing that evolves over time and place, it shouldn't have to be preserved in the "correct" version if the origin is acknowledged.
these things exist outside of western culture too. I'd be surprised if all the types of dumplings weren't derivatives of each other.
Well, seeing as how tomatoes are from the Americas, who is appropriating who.
Oh boy! That's a whole different can of worms:
isn't it curious how similar pizza is to Middle Eastern flat breads with toppings? And how Italians invented spaghetti shortly after Marco Polo returned from China where he would have been exposed to noodle dishes?
If you ever eat sushi with salmon, that's a Norwegian "invention" that was made to sell more fish Japan. No country "owns" a dish.
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.
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.
Absolutely gorgeous article.
I had no idea our sushi rolls and banh mi were so divergent. How long until "Australian Banh Mi" is a thing overseas?
The wonderful thing about food is that it's always changing. People shit on stuff for not being "authentic" but frankly I think it's delightful how different traditions come together to play. Mixing and matching until the local food reflects the available ingredients and preferences of the populous.
I mean I make a mean lemon tofu which is a derivative of lemon chicken which is a derivative of a Cantonese style that was adapted for churning out cheap and appealing food so migrants could work at takeaway stores and get visas.
Food tells a story, wherever you have it and however you have it. Appreciating that is imho the more joyful approach than trying to fix it in time.
Historically, 'authentic' food was probably half rotten anyway.
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.
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.
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'.
Technically "burger" is short for "Hamburg-style ground beef sandwich"
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.
This is something I’ve always warmly noticed about Mexicans in general - a love of seeing their culture exported and embraced around the world.
“Cultural appropriation” often seems to emit from the mouths of those not from the culture they are claiming is being appropriated.
It’s beautiful to see how piñatas are a childrens’ birthday party staple in all corners of the globe, how fresh tacos are eaten at British tables on a normal weeknight. It’s a celebration of a culture, not a theft. If I hadn’t encountered a burrito one night in Germany many many years ago, I perhaps would never have made the journey to witness the architectural beauty of Zócalo plaza, the wonderful paintings of Siqueiros, or learned of the rich culture of Mesoamerica at Teotihuacan.
Every year, on my birthday, I celebrate by cooking carnitas (as taught to me in Mexico City) and elote to share with all my friends and family. Sufficed to say, everyone who has eaten it is now fully aware of the culinary brilliance of Mexico (and we’ve a few friends signed up to join us on our next trip to Mexico)!
Food is a language of international understanding and a powerful tool for breaking down the barriers between cultures. “Australian” sushi isn’t a slight against the Japanese but a sign of deep love for Japan and how that love is an integral part of modern Australian identity.
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.
It's obvious to me that wearing someone's culture as a costume is fucked up
Why is it fucked up?
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.
Because without living the culture, you will not get the nuance no matter how much you try.
Cultures are complex.
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.
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?
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 ♬
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.
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..
deleted
Why is the knife upside down?
...
Because it's an Australian knife, duh 🙃
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.
Is aussie style sushi not still considered Japanese food?
To an Australian, probably. To a Japanese person in Japan? Probably not.
Egh, I could live with that...
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...
so it's square sushi?
well I guess it's better than bread with sprinkles on it
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.
dude that's just sushi
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)
Sounds delightful! Sounds like we need some Australian Sushi in my neck of the woods!
Throw some wasabi on the barbie
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.
Fugu and a Orion tinnie sounds about right
Wait till they hear about mexican sushi
Throw another shrimp on the barbie i mean throw the sushi on the barbie
What a crock ;)
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.
