I don’t think a dish has to be 100% original from the domestication of the species of the ingredients all the way to the invention of the dish. I would say it’s valid to claim a variation of a dish with just one tiny tweak. Norwegians can’t claim the entirety of sushi but they are totally valid in claiming specifically salmon sushi. The French can’t claim to have invented neither wheat, flour, bread, the baking of bread in ovens or any of the other steps it took in-between, but they can claim the baguette specifically as a French bread.
I don’t think any food type can be claimed by a nation, that idea is very novel. You talk about bread and I think about the quintessential Italian ciabatta bread, which was invented in the 1990’s.
But I do really enjoy experiencing different cultures. I don’t subscribe to the idea of ownership of any of it by any country or culture. That is all.
The broad consensus amongst scholars of nationalism is that nations are a recent phenomenon. However, some historians argue that their existence can be traced to the medieval period, or a minority believe even to antiquity.
Yes it’s quite novel. Most national identities and stereotypes are from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Read Eric Hobsbawns ‘the invention of tradition’’ for example.
The Italian cuisine and it’s staples are very much a construction from the post war period, look at the history of the spaghetti carbonara, which was wiped up by an American army cook, but was later elevated to an supposedly ‘ancient’ recipe.
But before the era of nationalism most people didn’t think in terms of nations and national stereotypes.
Ok “nationalism” sure. But you can’t argue that cultural associations didn’t exist. This is why we had trade routes. And agriculture influenced by regional geography, climate, etc.
You point out very carefully selected specific examples like carbonara. This is like the exception that proves the rule.
I don’t think a dish has to be 100% original from the domestication of the species of the ingredients all the way to the invention of the dish. I would say it’s valid to claim a variation of a dish with just one tiny tweak. Norwegians can’t claim the entirety of sushi but they are totally valid in claiming specifically salmon sushi. The French can’t claim to have invented neither wheat, flour, bread, the baking of bread in ovens or any of the other steps it took in-between, but they can claim the baguette specifically as a French bread.
I don’t think any food type can be claimed by a nation, that idea is very novel. You talk about bread and I think about the quintessential Italian ciabatta bread, which was invented in the 1990’s.
But I do really enjoy experiencing different cultures. I don’t subscribe to the idea of ownership of any of it by any country or culture. That is all.
The Swedes can keep the entire claim to Surströmming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surströmming
Have you met our Lord and savior hakarl?
The idea of a national culture having some claim on a food type is novel? I’d say the concept is pretty common and widespread.
Novel and widespread have nothing to do with aech other.
From the wikipedia article about nations:
Yes it’s quite novel. Most national identities and stereotypes are from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Read Eric Hobsbawns ‘the invention of tradition’’ for example.
The Italian cuisine and it’s staples are very much a construction from the post war period, look at the history of the spaghetti carbonara, which was wiped up by an American army cook, but was later elevated to an supposedly ‘ancient’ recipe.
But before the era of nationalism most people didn’t think in terms of nations and national stereotypes.
Ok “nationalism” sure. But you can’t argue that cultural associations didn’t exist. This is why we had trade routes. And agriculture influenced by regional geography, climate, etc.
You point out very carefully selected specific examples like carbonara. This is like the exception that proves the rule.