How is this even relevant? I really don’t see any connection.
The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English is a bit ironic, with a whiff of Stockholm syndrome, at least for me.
How so? The potato was force upon them, not mashed potatoes specifically. It would be totally understandable if the Irish would choose to get rid of everything that has anything to do with the British. This happens to a degree that the language Gaelic is revitalized. But it’s not up to me as a foreigner who never set foot on Ireland to expect that from them. Potato is an important food item all over Europe. “The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English” is just an observation. You can’t dispute observations because they are “a bit ironic”. That’s not how history works.
The appropriation of certain dishes as national is, in itself, a rather novel idea.
How is this even an argument for your side? Nations are a social construct developed long after Columbus. By saying, anything that came after the 1400s can’t be part of a national identity, you are implying that nations exist since for ever.
My argument is in line with ‘the invention of tradition’ of Eric Hobsbawn and ‘imagined communities’ by Benedict Anderson in that most ‘national identity and tradition’ is an actively put forward construct that is really not as ancient as it purports.
The ownership of national dishes is what I argue against, the one in this thread that elicited my response was that of mashed potatoes being an Irish dish. If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
So no disagreement in that matter, I would say.
The Aztec argument is about what is fundamentally Mexican and the tragedy of that civilization being wiped out. This is another example that traditionalism about culture is a rather silly position to hold in an argument.
But if you re read the thread I think you’ll find that
I think you misunderstood the meme and worded your first comment poorly.
The meme is saying that the equivalent of guacamole on the island of Ireland is mashed potatoes. It doesn’t say the Irish invented it, it doesn’t really focus on national identity. I mean on Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Different nations and the meme just says Irish.
And instead of saying “there is no such thing as Irish”, you said “potatoes aren’t Irish enough because they came too late”, implying that there is such a thing as Irish culture but potatoes don’t qualify.
If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
The interlocutor was me and all I’m saying is that the British Empire forced potatoes on the Irish and because of that, potatoes were so wide spread in Ireland that they quality as a national dish. How is that silly? I still don’t follow. Imagine having to grow potatoes and then trying out a variety of dishes. Silly.
How is this even relevant? I really don’t see any connection.
How so? The potato was force upon them, not mashed potatoes specifically. It would be totally understandable if the Irish would choose to get rid of everything that has anything to do with the British. This happens to a degree that the language Gaelic is revitalized. But it’s not up to me as a foreigner who never set foot on Ireland to expect that from them. Potato is an important food item all over Europe. “The idea that the portal became Irish because it was forced upon them by the English” is just an observation. You can’t dispute observations because they are “a bit ironic”. That’s not how history works.
How is this even an argument for your side? Nations are a social construct developed long after Columbus. By saying, anything that came after the 1400s can’t be part of a national identity, you are implying that nations exist since for ever.
I think that we do not disagree in most points.
My argument is in line with ‘the invention of tradition’ of Eric Hobsbawn and ‘imagined communities’ by Benedict Anderson in that most ‘national identity and tradition’ is an actively put forward construct that is really not as ancient as it purports.
The ownership of national dishes is what I argue against, the one in this thread that elicited my response was that of mashed potatoes being an Irish dish. If you read correctly it’s my interlocutor that made the point about the British repression forcing the potato on the Irish, and the argument of that being the National dish is even more silly to me.
So no disagreement in that matter, I would say.
The Aztec argument is about what is fundamentally Mexican and the tragedy of that civilization being wiped out. This is another example that traditionalism about culture is a rather silly position to hold in an argument.
But if you re read the thread I think you’ll find that
I think you misunderstood the meme and worded your first comment poorly.
The meme is saying that the equivalent of guacamole on the island of Ireland is mashed potatoes. It doesn’t say the Irish invented it, it doesn’t really focus on national identity. I mean on Ireland is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Different nations and the meme just says Irish.
And instead of saying “there is no such thing as Irish”, you said “potatoes aren’t Irish enough because they came too late”, implying that there is such a thing as Irish culture but potatoes don’t qualify.
The interlocutor was me and all I’m saying is that the British Empire forced potatoes on the Irish and because of that, potatoes were so wide spread in Ireland that they quality as a national dish. How is that silly? I still don’t follow. Imagine having to grow potatoes and then trying out a variety of dishes. Silly.