Are Social Justice Warriors Overdoing Their Mission to Defend Authenticity?
As we have studied, there are many motivations for cultural appropriation. There are respectful homages, disrespectful rip-offs, and everything in-between. Some cases aren’t so clear cut. Take, for example, the case of two white ladies who went to Mexico to learn how to make street food, returned to Portland, were accused of being thieves, and were forced to shut down.
Their rise and fall is described in the article “Kooks Serves Pop-Up Breakfast Burritos with Handmade Tortillas Out of a Food Cart on Cesar Chavez.”
We find that Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly left Portland for Puerto Nuevo, fell in love with the handmade tortillas, “peeked” at the methods used when the locals wouldn’t unload their secrets, returned to Portland and experimented with what knowledge they had, and they served breakfast burritos partly inspired by Puerto Nuevo and party inspired by the “SoCal burrito.”
In many ways, their synthesis of ingredients and methods make them poster children for Gustavo Arellano. They were innovating and, yes, stealing in Arellano’s “Darwinian” sense, and were making some of the most “decadent” mouth-watering breakfast burritos in Portland, compelling people to stand in long lines.
But if you’ll notice, the article has an “Update: Koos has closed” caption on it.
What happened?
According to Caroline Moreno who wrote “Portland Burrito Cart Closes After Owners Are Accused of Cultural Appropriation,” the publicity surrounding Kali Wilgus and Liz “LC” Connelly grew and grew until enough people were offended by the fact that Wilgus and Connelly admitted to stealing the tortilla recipe and methods.
Many objected to the fact that Wilgus and Connelly didn’t show any remorse or desire to compensate the Mexican women whose recipes the two Anglo women stole before returning to Portland to strike it rich.
The narrative rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. As you can imagine in the age of social media where cancel culture is rampant, social justice warriors went on the rampage and forced the closure of Kooks.
While a moral principle was enforced, the Mexican women are not a penny richer, the people of Portland are being deprived of what were the best burritos available, and fewer Americans can now taste a part of authentic Mexican delicacy. Is all this worth it to enforce a moral principle? There is probably no clear right or wrong answer. I’ll let you decide. But based on what we’ve read from Gustavo Arellano, we can infer that he defends Wilgus and Connelly.
But don’t take my word for it. Here is Gustavo Arellano reiterating many of the ideas we’ve covered as he discusses the closure of Kooks on the KCRW Good Food podcast.
Arellano observes that Portland’s social justice warriors went overboard and that a lot of their extreme behavior is more of a response to the political climate than the women’s behavior. Further, Arellano agrees with Good Food host Evan Kleinman that there is an “authenticity fallacy” that makes a lot of white people reduce Mexican food to a narrow, fallacious definition of authenticity.
Attitude Counts
In Gustavo Arellano’s article “The Problem Isn’t Rick Bayless Cooking Mexican Food--It’s That He’s a Thin-Skinned Diva,” Arellano defends Rick Bayless for cooking Mexican food, but he excoriates Bayless for painting himself as a White Messiah who is America’s Mexican food champion. It is Bayless’ arrogance and condescension that piques Arellano, not Bayless’ cultural appropriation.
Race and Privilege
The controversy surrounding Rick Bayless and the aforementioned Portland women who made breakfast burritos of the now closed Kooks has steered the debate about authentic Mexican food to the subjects of race and privilege. Tim Carman weighs in with his article “Should White Chefs Sell Burritos?” We read that racial shaming in Portland is a powerful political and economical tool and that social justice warriors have even made a list of white Portland restaurants owners whose businesses should be avoided and a list of similar restaurants of people of color who should be visited instead. As Carman writes: “Someone in the City of Roses has even created a Google doc, listing the white-owned restaurants that have appropriated cuisines outside their own culture. For each entry, the document suggests alternative restaurants owned by people of color.”
Social Justice Warriors Impose Totalitarianism on the Food World
Both Tim Carman and Gustavo Arellano agree that this scrutiny of restaurants in which social justice warriors dictate what is authentic by matching a person’s race with the cuisine is extremist, limits the freedoms of what people do in the kitchen, including their culinary creativity, puts people in racial boxes, fails to recognize that there are fusion cuisines that defy categorization, and in general push a totalitarian mentality on the food world.
In other words, there is a totalitarian streak in the Cult of Authenticity movement. In an argumentative paper, this would be one of the grounds or reasons for defending Arellano’s claim that the Cult of Authenticity is bogus.
Throw a Wrench into the Argument
But there are arguments against Gustavo Arellano and Tim Carman. In a critical thinking class we have to look at both sides. We have to always throw a wrench into the argument. Here is one:
In rejecting the social justice warriors’ rejection of cultural appropriation, are there abuses that cannot be ignored? Indeed, some abuses can be identified.
The “White-Washing” of Ethnic Cuisine
In the Katie Donovan article “Culinary Appropriation,” she contends that Rick Bayless and other prominent white chefs appoint themselves as translators of ethnic cuisine for a white consumer base in the interests of making money. By translating ethnic cuisine, these white chefs are appropriating the cuisine for their profits, misrepresenting the original foods and thereby diluting their authenticity, and egotistically claiming culinary greatness when the credit should be given to those who remain in obscurity. As Donovan writes:
“Bayless has had several transgressions against the Mexican culture through his response to critics. However, his description of ‘translating’ certain traditional Mexican ingredients for his Midwestern clients is borderline offensive. He is personally contributing to the white washing of the Mexican culinary culture in highlighting terms that would be more appealing to non-Mexican consumers. In order to market Mexican cuisine to a different audience, it seems as though Rick Bayless puts profits above respect for culture in his restaurants.”
“White-Washing” or “Innovation”?
Gustavo Arellano would agree with some of the above, especially the egotism of self-appointed Food Messiahs for ethnic cuisine. But Gustavo Arellano doesn’t think ethnic foods get “white washed” so much as innovated, and that this innovation keeps Mexican food relevant and dynamic whereas Italian and German food are stagnant and losing relevance in the American dining scene.
Language and Semantics
One of the most mind-boggling areas of argumentation is language or semantics: How we use language and the very words we choose to deliver our argument. If we use “white-washing” we will surely be more likely to be strongly opposed to cultural appropriation; if we use “innovation,” we will surely be more likely to defend, along with Gustavo Arellano, cultural appropriation.
Again, Not all Cultural Appropriation is the Same
A white chef “translating,” stealing, appropriating (or whatever word you want to use) from an ethnic community and profiteering from it is a very specific kind of cultural appropriation. But on a broader level, all food preparations borrow methods and ingredients from all over the world so that the evolution of food is built on a large degree of cultural appropriation. This point is made in the Matt Gross article “The Cultural Appropriation of Food.” Gross observes that pizza, ramen, Cajun-style Gumbo, and an endless list of foods come from trans-migration, innovation, improvisation, and, yes, cultural appropriation. That in fact is the history of food. As Gross writes:
“Ancient history: Cultural appropriation has given us the best food in the world. Pizza, for example, is unthinkable without tomatoes, which originated in the New World and so came to Italy as a result of Christopher Columbus’s voyages. Ramen did not become a big deal in Japan until the postwar American transitional authority brought tons and tons of wheat to the islands. Chili peppers, as this awesome story from Vincent Bevins at The Awl beautifully explained, originate in Latin America, so whenever a Thai curry or Sichuan hotpot sets your mouth aflame, you have the Spanish and especially the Portuguese to thank for bringing that fruit around the world. Oranges probably came from Southeast Asia. Wheat from southeastern Turkey. Apples from Kazakhstan. Last week, some Facebook friends and I determined that Cajun-style gumbo may be the most international food in the world, all of its essential ingredients having originated in farflung corners of the world.”
Your Nuanced View of Cultural Appropriation & Culinary Authenticity Will Influence Your Argument
As you consider the many definitions of cultural appropriation and culinary authenticity, you must also consider that the more complex and nuanced your definitions of these terms are the more sophisticated and impressive your essay will be.
Introduction
We have been looking at Gustavo Arellano’s claim that when it comes to Mexican food the Cult of Authenticity is a bad thing rife with fallacies and misconceptions. Let us, again, take a look at Arellano’s arguments before we examine counterarguments that challenge Arellano’s claim.
Review of Gustavo Arellano’s Arguments Against the Cult of Authenticity
(Pro Tip: The following arguments would make an excellent body paragraph outline for Essay 4)
- In spite of some phony white chefs who wrongly anoint themselves as ambassadors of Mexican food, mainstreaming Mexican food is on balance a good because it exposes more people to the greatness of Mexican food and encourages cultural respect and cultural celebration of Mexican contributions.
- Much of the purity cult behind the notion of authenticity is from whites on the Left and Right who don’t understand Mexican food or the Mexican people.
- Letting social justice warriors dictate what is authentic can lead to food totalitarianism and absurdly narrow, reductionist definitions of authenticity.
- The lines are blurred between innovation, cross-cultural synergy, and cultural appropriation, which has occurred since the beginning of time and is an inevitable part of how food evolves into amazing dishes.
- It’s absurd to reject Tex-Mex or Cal-Mex food when we consider that these fusions are about embracing the greatness of Mexican cuisine and that no food is good or bad per se; rather, how a chef executes the dish determines whether it’s good or not. It’s all about execution. A bad taco could put you in a bad mood for a week. An exceptional taco could “change your life” and inject your brain’s amygdala with euphoric endorphins.
Counterarguments that challenge Gustavo Arellano’s claim that we should reject the Cult of Authenticity
- Plagiarism Argument: When we steal intellectual or creative property, there should be consequences. We call this type of stealing plagiarism. Students who commit plagiarism get into big trouble. Shouldn’t cooks who steal creatively and in effect commit culinary plagiarism be subject to some kind of penalties? Should not these chefs who engage in stealing or cultural appropriation at the very least be required to ascribe credit to their sources? Should not these chefs who commit acts of culinary plagiarism at least be required to give a portion of their profits to the areas they stole from?
- Moral Argument: Cultural appropriation, the kind where privileged people go to a small town in the United States, Mexico or Latin America and then steal recipes and cooking methods, offends our common sense of morality, fairness, honesty, and justice. When Gustavo Arellano says, “Everybody steals,” and that’s just the “Darwinian” way in the hyper-competitive restaurant industry, could we not accuse Arellano of using a “two rights make a wrong fallacy”? This fallacy is commonly referred to as argumentum ad populum or appeal to the majority fallacy. In other words, just because the majority engage in immoral behavior doesn't make that behavior right.
- Quality Control or “Wannabes” Argument: Sure, Gustavo Arellano points out all these great examples of cultural appropriation, but those examples don’t diminish the exponential growth of phony Mexican restaurants that serve the most crass, disgusting, abominable “Mexican food” imaginable. Violating the Cult of Authenticity comes with a steep price: A bunch of wannabes steal some recipes and think they know how to make Mexican food when in fact what they are serving is an insult to Mexican food and to Mexican culture.
- Grandmother argument: A student told me he had some very mediocre Molcajete at an expensive Mexican restaurant. He told me, “When I visit my grandmother in Guatemala, she makes me Molcajete that blows all the other ones away. I can’t get excited paying premium dollar for a bunch of sad food that goes under the name of ‘Mexican food.’” What this student is saying essentially is that the tradition, experience, and love his grandmother puts in her homemade Molcajete cannot be compared to the vastly inferior substitutes. Grandmother’s cooking, in other words, is an argument for authenticity.
Pro Writing Tip for Essay 4: Consider Legit Food Innovation Principle Vs. Flagrant Thievery Principle
Hello Everyone,
As I pore over Gustavo Arellano’s claim that the rigid orthodoxy of food authenticity should be shattered in favor of more flexible food guidelines, I am struck by something that I believe will help you with your argumentative essay.
I am struck by the fact that Arellano uses not one but two arguments to support his claim, and these arguments do not dovetail conveniently to support his claim. To the contrary, his two arguments are divergent: They split and move in opposite directions and as such these diverging arguments weaken his overall claim.
Legit Food Innovation Principle Vs. Flagrant Thievery Principle
What are these two arguments?
The first argument, the one I agree with, is what I’ll call the Legit Food Innovation Principle. This principle states that we have food traditions based on our family, culture, and region, and natural forces cause us to make innovations. For example, we move and in moving we make natural adaptations and innovations based on the original recipe. Or our love and respect of the tacos compels us to be “taco artists” who experiment and make variations to put a spin on old classic style recipes.
I’ll give you two examples.
First, let us say a woman from Chihuahua, Mexico, moves to El Paso, Texas. In Chihuahua, she made tacos with cotija cheese, but in El Paso she can mostly access cheddar cheese, so she goes with the cheddar. Let us say the peppers and other ingredients that grow in her El Paso backyard are different from the plants that grow in her Chihuahua backyard, so she uses the ingredients that are local to her.
These innovations and adaptations, Arellano claims, are legit and totally support his claim that we should challenge food authenticity, which would dictate that we must rigidly adhere to the original recipe.
Here is a second example. Head chef of Guerrilla Tacos in downtown Los Angeles is Pico Rivera native Wes Avila. Mr. Avila is also featured in Netflix’s The Taco Chronicles. Wes Avila celebrates the diversity of tacos, he celebrates the various regions of tacos, and in doing so he is what I’d call a Taco Story-Teller, a craftsman, and an artist who looks at the corn tortilla as a “blank slate” on which to make his artistic creations. His Guerrilla Tacos menu is a testament to this fact. I would consider his approach to tacos part of the Legit Innovation Argument.
However, we must now arrive at another one of Arellano’s arguments, one that I disagree with. I call this the Flagrant Thievery Principle. Regarding the stealing of recipes, Arellano says “everyone does it” and it’s a smart money-making technique in the cutthroat restaurant business.
Here I must depart with Arellano for several reasons.
First the argument that “everyone does it” is a logical fallacy and any critical thinking instructor worth his salt will tell you that two wrongs never make a right. If everyone is stealing computer equipment at your workplace, that doesn’t mean it’s right for you to do the same. Our integrity demands that we never succumb to the “everyone does it” fallacy.
My second disagreement with Arellano is that I find it morally bankrupt for privileged predatory philistines to go down to Mexico, sneak around, steal recipes, and then repackage those recipes for their own profit. Many of my students have pointed out that such behavior smacks of systemic racism and exploitation. I personally wouldn’t want that bad mojo over my restaurant or my conscience.
My third disagreement with the Flagrant Thievery Principle is that Taco Bell got rich stealing from Mitla Cafe, and so according to Arellano, it must be good Sorry, but getting rich is not a moral defense of anything. Making an abomination of real Mexican food and contributing to the depersonalization of food culture through fast-food service is not a moral defense of food theft. My wife told me that Taco Bell and Jack in the Box exist, not for quality food, but because people get stoned and get the munchies. While she may be making an oversimplification, she may be on to something. In any event, making cheap soulless food for profit is hardly a defense of food theft and cultural appropriation.
Conclusion
I agree with Arellano’s Legit Food Innovation Principle, but I vehemently reject his Flagrant Thievery Principle. The latter argument tailspins out of control, careens off the road, and splashes into the Pacific Ocean where it belongs.
I want to thank my students who visited me during my Zoom office hours and asked me thoughtful questions, which made me pore over Arellano’s claim with more granular rigor and intensity.
I hope this discussion was helpful to you all.
Best to Everyone,
Jeff McMahon
Gustavo Arellano Is 75% Right
Gustavo Arellano has made many compelling, insightful points in his essay “Let White People Appropriate Mexican Food,” but do I agree with him? I’d say he’s 75% right.
He’s right that stealing or appropriating food is a reality in the Darwinian restaurant industry where creating buzz and mouth-watering dishes is a cut-throat business. He’s right that stealing and innovating food makes Mexican food relevant, vibrant, current, and popular. He’s right that stealing Mexican food in a way promotes it and helps scale it to the point that it’s the fastest-growing food globally.
However, Arellano has two glaring weaknesses in his argument. For one, he conveniently doesn’t address the sad fact that stealing food too often ruins the food. American bland tastebuds want bland foods, so too often restaurateurs cater to those bland tastebuds by Americanizing Mexican, Thai, Indian, Chinese, Korean, and other foods so that in America we get inferior, insipid versions of the original. Arellano’s argument would have been more credible had he addressed this issue.
Another weakness in Arellano’s argument is his avoidance of white rebranding of ethnic food. Take the Netflix series High on the Hog, for example, which teaches us that during slavery and the African Diaspora many African dishes were carried to America and then rebranded “Southern Cuisine,” which is a euphemism for white cuisine. Such rebranding is a moral abomination. Arellano should have addressed this type of appropriation to give his essay more credibility.
So on balance, Arellano makes some great points about how cultural appropriation can be a form of cultural appreciation that champions Mexican cooking. But he should have shown the unsavory underbelly of cultural appropriation: watered-down bland dishes like Taco Bell and white people rebranding ethnic cuisine as “white food.” Both of those scenarios are unacceptable.
To stimulate ideas for your essay, in a paragraph, present your reaction to the following counterarguments that challenge Gustavo Arellano’s defense of cultural appropriation.
- Plagiarism Argument: When we steal intellectual or creative property, there should be consequences. We call this type of stealing plagiarism. Students who commit plagiarism get into big trouble. Shouldn’t cooks who steal creatively and in effect commit plagiarism be subject to some kind of penalties? Should not these chefs who engage in stealing or cultural appropriation at the very least be required to ascribe credit to their sources? Should not these chefs who commit acts of culinary plagiarism at least be required to give a portion of their profits to the areas they stole from?
- Moral Argument: Cultural appropriation, the kind where privileged people go to a small town in the United States, Mexico or Latin America and steal recipes and cooking methods, offends our common sense of morality, fairness, honesty, and justice. When Gustavo Arellano says, “Everybody steals,” and that’s just the “Darwinian” way in the hyper-competitive restaurant industry, could we not accuse Arellano of using a “two rights make a wrong fallacy”? This fallacy is commonly referred to as argumentum ad populum or appeal to the majority fallacy.
- Quality Control or “Wannabes” Argument: Sure, Gustavo Arellano points out all these great examples of cultural appropriation, but those examples don’t diminish the exponential growth of phony Mexican restaurants that serve the most crass, disgusting, abominable “Mexican food” imaginable. Violating the Cult of Authenticity comes with a steep price: A bunch of wannabes steal some recipes and think they know how to make Mexican food when in fact what they are serving is an insult to Mexican food and Mexican culture.
- Grandmother argument: A student told me he had some very mediocre Molcajete at an expensive Mexican restaurant. He told me, “When I visit my grandmother in Guatemala, she makes me Molcajete that blows all the other ones away. I can’t get excited paying premium dollar for a bunch of sad food that goes under the name of ‘Mexican food.’” What this student is saying essentially is that the tradition, experience, and love his grandmother puts in her homemade Molcajete cannot be compared to the vastly inferior substitutes. Grandmother’s cooking, in other words, is an argument for authenticity.
Recent Comments