An Insight To Cultural Appropriation Of Food
Analyzing rhetorical strategies through the views of two opposing authors in the matter of cultural appropriation of food.
Cultural appropriation of food is a contentious issue due to all the different points of view and opinions in the matter. Cultural appropriation can be defined as “the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture”.
In Simone Grace Seol’s “When it comes to Korean food, there is no such thing as cultural appropriation” and in Ruth Tam’s “How it feels when white people shame your culture’s food — then make it trendy”, writers are trying to understand if cultural appropriation of food exists, or if there is no such thing.
Although both authors are using logical structure and reasoning, Seol effectively uses objective rational evidence whereas Tam uses subjective emotional appeal, which weakens her point.
Seol argues that cultural appropriation of food does not exist as such, it is only a matter of appreciation. Seol’s thesis challenges the belief that American people’s consumption and styling of non-Western food is cultural appropriation.
Unlike these thinkers, Seol asserts that even though you might belong to certain ethnicity, you do not own that ethnicity’s food or recipes; nobody does. She states a reasonable question, “Who owns the claim to authenticity?” Seol asserts that the way people cook and eat is a response to the environment.
For example, the way she cooks in her home in South California differs from the way her grandmother cooked in the rural part of Korea. What is more, she assures that recipes may vary within Korea itself.
Seol explains that some discomfort and awkwardness can occur when seeing one’s traditional meal being made in a totally different way. However, this leads to some minority groups being more visible and their food gaining acceptance in the collective culture.
Simone Grace Seol effectively uses her objectivity in logical structure and reasoning to explain that cultural appropriation of food can potentially benefit all members of a pluralistic society, including members of once-obscured minority groups.
She illustrates this point clearly when she creates contrast by describing once-unknown countries that experienced rapid economic growth and international notoriety through food “appreciation” as opposed as appropriation.
“In the past decade, her home nation went from being an obscure country to a major player on the international stage […][and] the 11th largest economy in the world”.
-Simone Grace Seol.
In other words, Seol believes that through what others may call “cultural appropriation of food” some cultures are now visible and noticed because their food became accepted by other communities.
The author successfully helps the reader, using objective logical reasoning, to see that cultural appropriation of food is not a negative thing, and it helps communities to gain visibility.
Many would probably object that the author completely removes the use of emotions; however, I see this as the most valuable strategy because she is giving the audience facts and evidence of what she wants to prove, not letting the audience be persuaded through empathy and emotions.
In conclusion, Seol effectively uses effectively uses her objectivity in logical structure and reasoning to explain that cultural appropriation of food can potentially benefit all members of a pluralistic society.
Ruth Tam claims that there are double standards in the actions of people towards ethnic food; the same food that had been rejected in the past, has started to become accepted and gave way to restaurants to make profit out of it. This leads to an unfulfilling cultural experience when people try this food for shallow reasons.
Tam provides the example of what happened to her when she was young. She explains that every time her family was cooking, visitors would get surrounded by the scents and smells of whatever they were cooking. She was not conscious of those smells until a high-school friend of her stated that her home smelled like “Chinese grossness”.
Contrasting with this, in the later years, those dishes, before called “gross “, are now embraced, and became foodies’ favorites.
The author stresses that when someone takes a claim on ethnic food, it must fulfill minimum requirements to “appropriate” that given food, for example, describing the history of that community.
Tam claims that when immigrant food receives the same respect as “American” food, your experience will be better, and you will feel fulfilled.
Tam fails to use objectively logical structure and reasoning due to her use of emotional appeal, which therefore weakens the logic structure she was trying to create.
“This cultural appropriation stings because the same dishes hyped as “authentic” on trendy menus were scorned when cooked in the homes of the immigrants who brought them here”
-Ruth Tam.
In this quotation, Tam’s use of diction when she says “stings” is a clear example where she is using emotional appeal to generate empathy on the reader, thus, weakening her point.
This choice of words contrasts with Seol, because the latter establishes that we have to get over with our emotions and be logical about the so-called cultural appropriation of food.
Emotional appeal can be problematic because it affects the use of logical appeal. The essay published by Seol challenges Tam’s view that cultural appropriation of food only has benefits for the culture that appropriates, whereas the other culture remains misrepresented.
To sum up, Tam fails to use objectively logical structure and reasoning due to her use of emotional appeal, therefore weakens the logical structure she was trying to create.
In conclusion, although both authors are using logical structure and reasoning, Seol effectively uses objective rational evidence, whereas Tam uses subjective emotional appeal, which weakens her point.
Ultimately, it seems that there is not only one valid point of view in this matter, however, it could be interesting to learn about other writers’ opinions in order to understand how more people think and feel about this contentious issue.
