How do you compare Lucy Long and Sydney Mintz' approaches to food as representations and products of culture? What is the significance of geography for Mintz?
Chloe Johnson After reading both, I felt that Long more relates to food as a window to the culture in which the food originated from. In Mintz’s ..Food and Diaspora, Mintz observes cultures as redefining factors in relation to food. “When food objects, processes-even ideas-spread from one society to another, the receiving society is likely to modify, often to misunderstand, and usually redefine what it has received. “(Mintz, 517) In other words Mintz believes that a culture and its “behavioral differences” and movement (Mintz, 512) have the power to redefine a food or its process.I feel that Mintz sees cultures and time as a transformation of food and food movement. In comparison to Long, I feel Long sees food as a window into its owning culture. And the process of which to understand it involves “negotiation” rather than redefining. Though I feel both perspectives are true, I believe there is a fine line between interpretation (Long) and redefining (Mintz.) Considering this I will use both perspectives to indentify food. I feel that by experiencing food one is able to see the culture or which it originated from. However, I will forever wonder how much of the original culture was lost in translation. In his writing, Mintz speaks of certain environmental or geographical circumstances to provides an “image of rich food security, often even of splendor.” However, as Mintz claims practices such as these carry great ethical weight. Mintz also gives an example that in present day, California’s environmental characteristics provide great promise for food movements and a wide range of food production. Chloe Johnson
“ Food and food ways travel the globe contributing to the re production of ethnic, religious, class, and natural identities. Critics raise concerns however about the detrimental consequences of corporate led globalization of the food supply on the food sovereign of various communities, not to mention the environmental effects of increasing food miles. “ Food is the one thing that keeps us going in our daily lives. Without food there would be come to life. People or animals could not survive. Food can be grown all the world, just ways of growing it differ. Countries like the United States can grow more food then we know what to do with meanwhile other countries around the world struggle to even grown food for themselves on small farms. Culture plays a huge role in the way that we perceive our food too. The huge problem that we run into however is that in the united state we have such a hinger for whatever food we can get out hands on form all over the world. There are no barriers for fresh food that we believe in. We, as a society, we look into all reaches of the worlds to get the food we needed no matter where we live. This is a representation of our culture as a whole. Food is very dependent on the geography of the region you live it. By living by our geography we can get fresher and more delicious foods. It would also give us a greater appreciation for our food and where it comes from. After all good is a gift from the earth that we should enjoy.
Mintz states on page 513 that do to evolution we have changed our eating style… “Our history as eating animals changed profoundly when we became cooking animals. Long before that, however, we had first to become fire using, and then fire-controlling animals. An unimaginably huge consequence of our mastery of fire was conversion of substance into edible food that could not have been food for us without cooking.”
As I look at what Mintz has said, I believe that people can look at revolution as a negative for society. Because of our need to consume meat which is the most inefficient way to obtain nutrients, we are destroying our food system. It not only stops at being able to cook this food and the demand of wanting to eat these foods. Then it is the demand of getting the food to eat, which led to invention of machine to better push out volume at low cost as Roberts says, then it the farms trying to keep up with the demand.
But then looking at in the terms as Mintz was using it, this led to the different ways--- foodways. According to Mintz this is how it all started from for one way. Food Diaspora, the modern Food Tower of Babel; but instead, we have been blessed with the scattering of culture and different abilities. It fascinates the minds.
It interests me that through Mintz writing it is very clear that he feels that food has had a greater movement or migration then the human species. It is hard for me to grasp this concept because how can you have this culture without the humans, or how can the world truly have food Diaspora if it was not for the humans who scattered the food or the people the domesticated the food. Mintz say that “though foods from all over were carried to the New World by immigrants, particularly from Europe, nearly every bit of the food carried away from the New World was the result of diffusion...not migration”(page 517). Some may question that if it came from the same people and came from primarily the same people why it is a huge difference or even if there is a difference at all. And according to Mintz there is a difference and it is the difference is the society in which the product is in. One huge contribution of this is trading. Look at the Columbus Exchange; it is a huge concept of the food the where brought from Old World to New World. Secondly, People adapt to culture as they become mobile What the product did once may not do the same elsewhere. Or the purpose of cooking a food in Africa one way may not be necessary to cook the same way in America.
Food and culture have always been closely intertwined. Food touches nearly every aspect of our lives, so it is no wonder that people’s lives and customs have been shaped around it for thousands of years. Mintz takes an anthropological look at how different food cultures developed differently around the world. He says, “our humanity is distinguished not so much by what people have, but what they do with what they have.”(514) For thousands of years, peoples' food systems have been based around whatever food was available. Whatever foods were suitable to the climate and other geographical features of the area were used to eat. he goes on to say that areas of culture began around areas where food was plentiful. As people moved around the globe, they inevitably traveled with the food they were accustomed to. Whether that was by the planting or moving of non native species or by simply adapting new ingredients into traditional recipes. Currently it seems that the real culture behind food is disappearing as mass production and overprocessing is replacing locally produced and farm fresh.
1) Sidney Mintz, “Food and Diaspora”: “You will note here how the steps that led up to our becoming animals that cook were progressive – ‘cumulative,’ if you prefer.” Mintz’s article, anthropologically grounded as it is, contains a major flaw. His perspective of human progression is inherently misfounded, assuming that humans originated from apes, G-d forbid. While the movement of food between societies might be his main focal point of this article, his historical perspective of the development of humanity is a debasement of technological progress and a minimalization of the contributions of previous generations. To illustrate this point, there is a well-known story of a great rabbi, Rabbi Joseph Soloveichik, zatza”l. Rav Soloveichik was once flying on an airplane with two of his sons. His sons were taking care to attend to their father throughout the flight. The man sitting next to the Rav notice the respect with which the sons were attending to their father. He remarked, “Wow! That’s truly amazing how your children tend to you. I can barely get my kids to call me once a month!” The Rav calmly turned to the man and replied, “That is because you believe that people come from apes, so every preceding generation is that much closer to being primitive animals. We believe in the Creation of man and the revelation at Sinai, which implies that every previous generation is that much greater than the subsequent generations.” Mintz’s reading of human development follows the passenger next to the Rav, however the Big Bang Theory was recently disproved, and even Darwin’s classic theory of evolution is under assault by modern biological and anthropological research. For more information on the Chassidic perspective of evolutionary theory, please see posts by Rabbi Dr. J. Immanuel Schochet on www.torahcafe.com or www.askmoses.com בס״ד Avrohom S.
1. “Food and foodways travel the globe, contributing to the (re)production in ethnic, religious, class and national identities.”- Food and Diaspora Mintz makes an interesting point, I can agree with the statement that food being passed around can share certain qualities about a culture, but what I find more to be the center of attention is how these new places manipulate them to fit their tastes. I recently had a conversation about such said topic when a person at our table order the “lobster carbonara” having lived in Italy, and coming from a very Sicilian family I had my own reserved and strong feelings about the dish. It traditionally was peasants dish and captures different aspects of the nation. While the concept of adding something like lobster really didn’t bother me, it was how they actually prepared the dish, having used a cream sauce instead of the signature egg, addition of peas and using fresh pasta. Understandably they used bacon in the replacement of guancaile but it is hard to come by that in the states so that can be overlooked. The basics that they replaced losing the essence of the dish are what drove me wild. Each element played a specific part and it was lost in translation. The dried pasta to soak in the egg sauce and to utilize the hard wheat flour used to make the pasta, the eggs as a source of protein for those who couldn’t afford meet. There in lines the tradition the national identity and it was lost as a matter of continence. --Liz V.
Chloe Johnson
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both, I felt that Long more relates to food as a window to the culture in which the food originated from. In Mintz’s ..Food and Diaspora, Mintz observes cultures as redefining factors in relation to food. “When food objects, processes-even ideas-spread from one society to another, the receiving society is likely to modify, often to misunderstand, and usually redefine what it has received. “(Mintz, 517) In other words Mintz believes that a culture and its “behavioral differences” and movement (Mintz, 512) have the power to redefine a food or its process.I feel that Mintz sees cultures and time as a transformation of food and food movement. In comparison to Long, I feel Long sees food as a window into its owning culture. And the process of which to understand it involves “negotiation” rather than redefining. Though I feel both perspectives are true, I believe there is a fine line between interpretation (Long) and redefining (Mintz.) Considering this I will use both perspectives to indentify food. I feel that by experiencing food one is able to see the culture or which it originated from. However, I will forever wonder how much of the original culture was lost in translation. In his writing, Mintz speaks of certain environmental or geographical circumstances to provides an “image of rich food security, often even of splendor.” However, as Mintz claims practices such as these carry great ethical weight. Mintz also gives an example that in present day, California’s environmental characteristics provide great promise for food movements and a wide range of food production.
Chloe Johnson
“ Food and food ways travel the globe contributing to the re production of ethnic, religious, class, and natural identities. Critics raise concerns however about the detrimental consequences of corporate led globalization of the food supply on the food sovereign of various communities, not to mention the environmental effects of increasing food miles. “
ReplyDeleteFood is the one thing that keeps us going in our daily lives. Without food there would be come to life. People or animals could not survive. Food can be grown all the world, just ways of growing it differ. Countries like the United States can grow more food then we know what to do with meanwhile other countries around the world struggle to even grown food for themselves on small farms. Culture plays a huge role in the way that we perceive our food too.
The huge problem that we run into however is that in the united state we have such a hinger for whatever food we can get out hands on form all over the world. There are no barriers for fresh food that we believe in. We, as a society, we look into all reaches of the worlds to get the food we needed no matter where we live. This is a representation of our culture as a whole. Food is very dependent on the geography of the region you live it. By living by our geography we can get fresher and more delicious foods. It would also give us a greater appreciation for our food and where it comes from. After all good is a gift from the earth that we should enjoy.
-Catherine S
Mintz states on page 513 that do to evolution we have changed our eating style… “Our history as eating animals changed profoundly when we became cooking animals. Long before that, however, we had first to become fire using, and then fire-controlling animals. An unimaginably huge consequence of our mastery of fire was conversion of substance into edible food that could not have been food for us without cooking.”
ReplyDeleteAs I look at what Mintz has said, I believe that people can look at revolution as a negative for society. Because of our need to consume meat which is the most inefficient way to obtain nutrients, we are destroying our food system. It not only stops at being able to cook this food and the demand of wanting to eat these foods. Then it is the demand of getting the food to eat, which led to invention of machine to better push out volume at low cost as Roberts says, then it the farms trying to keep up with the demand.
But then looking at in the terms as Mintz was using it, this led to the different ways--- foodways. According to Mintz this is how it all started from for one way. Food Diaspora, the modern Food Tower of Babel; but instead, we have been blessed with the scattering of culture and different abilities. It fascinates the minds.
It interests me that through Mintz writing it is very clear that he feels that food has had a greater movement or migration then the human species. It is hard for me to grasp this concept because how can you have this culture without the humans, or how can the world truly have food Diaspora if it was not for the humans who scattered the food or the people the domesticated the food. Mintz say that “though foods from all over were carried to the New World by immigrants, particularly from Europe, nearly every bit of the food carried away from the New World was the result of diffusion...not migration”(page 517).
ReplyDeleteSome may question that if it came from the same people and came from primarily the same people why it is a huge difference or even if there is a difference at all. And according to Mintz there is a difference and it is the difference is the society in which the product is in. One huge contribution of this is trading. Look at the Columbus Exchange; it is a huge concept of the food the where brought from Old World to New World. Secondly, People adapt to culture as they become mobile What the product did once may not do the same elsewhere. Or the purpose of cooking a food in Africa one way may not be necessary to cook the same way in America.
Food and culture have always been closely intertwined. Food touches nearly every aspect of our lives, so it is no wonder that people’s lives and customs have been shaped around it for thousands of years. Mintz takes an anthropological look at how different food cultures developed differently around the world. He says, “our humanity is distinguished not so much by what people have, but what they do with what they have.”(514) For thousands of years, peoples' food systems have been based around whatever food was available. Whatever foods were suitable to the climate and other geographical features of the area were used to eat. he goes on to say that areas of culture began around areas where food was plentiful. As people moved around the globe, they inevitably traveled with the food they were accustomed to. Whether that was by the planting or moving of non native species or by simply adapting new ingredients into traditional recipes. Currently it seems that the real culture behind food is disappearing as mass production and overprocessing is replacing locally produced and farm fresh.
ReplyDeleteDan T
1) Sidney Mintz, “Food and Diaspora”: “You will note here how the steps that led up to our becoming animals that cook were progressive – ‘cumulative,’ if you prefer.”
ReplyDeleteMintz’s article, anthropologically grounded as it is, contains a major flaw. His perspective of human progression is inherently misfounded, assuming that humans originated from apes, G-d forbid. While the movement of food between societies might be his main focal point of this article, his historical perspective of the development of humanity is a debasement of technological progress and a minimalization of the contributions of previous generations. To illustrate this point, there is a well-known story of a great rabbi, Rabbi Joseph Soloveichik, zatza”l. Rav Soloveichik was once flying on an airplane with two of his sons. His sons were taking care to attend to their father throughout the flight. The man sitting next to the Rav notice the respect with which the sons were attending to their father. He remarked, “Wow! That’s truly amazing how your children tend to you. I can barely get my kids to call me once a month!” The Rav calmly turned to the man and replied, “That is because you believe that people come from apes, so every preceding generation is that much closer to being primitive animals. We believe in the Creation of man and the revelation at Sinai, which implies that every previous generation is that much greater than the subsequent generations.” Mintz’s reading of human development follows the passenger next to the Rav, however the Big Bang Theory was recently disproved, and even Darwin’s classic theory of evolution is under assault by modern biological and anthropological research. For more information on the Chassidic perspective of evolutionary theory, please see posts by Rabbi Dr. J. Immanuel Schochet on www.torahcafe.com or www.askmoses.com
בס״ד
Avrohom S.
1. “Food and foodways travel the globe, contributing to the (re)production in ethnic, religious, class and national identities.”- Food and Diaspora
ReplyDeleteMintz makes an interesting point, I can agree with the statement that food being passed around can share certain qualities about a culture, but what I find more to be the center of attention is how these new places manipulate them to fit their tastes. I recently had a conversation about such said topic when a person at our table order the “lobster carbonara” having lived in Italy, and coming from a very Sicilian family I had my own reserved and strong feelings about the dish. It traditionally was peasants dish and captures different aspects of the nation. While the concept of adding something like lobster really didn’t bother me, it was how they actually prepared the dish, having used a cream sauce instead of the signature egg, addition of peas and using fresh pasta. Understandably they used bacon in the replacement of guancaile but it is hard to come by that in the states so that can be overlooked. The basics that they replaced losing the essence of the dish are what drove me wild. Each element played a specific part and it was lost in translation. The dried pasta to soak in the egg sauce and to utilize the hard wheat flour used to make the pasta, the eggs as a source of protein for those who couldn’t afford meet. There in lines the tradition the national identity and it was lost as a matter of continence.
--Liz V.