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.
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’.
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.
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.
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’.
Round bun = Burger.
Regardless of the patty.
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?
I know right?
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.
Why can’t people make up their minds?
breakfast casserole.
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.
Hey, I’m not American, and I never claimed they were rational or logical. It’s just funny that I’ve had this exact discussion only recently.
Technically “burger” is short for “Hamburg-style ground beef sandwich”