Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Alia Aljunied's avatar

Loved this - thank you Michelle!

Expand full comment
Tong Yuan Douville's avatar

I recently listened to--and then gave up on listening to--an old episode of Good Food LA. I generally love this podcast. In this episode however, a white guest proceeded to explain how the SGV is a great place for the "authentic" and "weird" regional dishes and also recommended Yelp as a great resource for those that don't speak Chinese. Had this segment been framed as how to approach Chinese restaurants in the SGV as an outsider, I might have found her comments problematic but understandable. Instead, it does what you speak to in your article, assume the audience is the same as the speaker. Who is she to say it's authentic or not? (On a side note, white people claiming something is "authentic" gives me hives.) For whom is the food weird to? Later in the podcast, they had Sang Yoon, a Korean American restaurateur, speak about Burmese food. I'm not saying Korean people can only speak about Korean food...because most of my food knowledge as a Chinese adoptee is sadly not about Chinese food. Clearly thought, this guy knew very little about Burmese food. Certainly less than an actual Burmese person. It felt like the thought process was, "He was Asian, so he must know about other Asian food." Most of the conversation was on contextualizing the food for it to feel approachable (ie. comfortable) for white people. And that is where I gave up on the podcast episode. The Codeswitch podcast did a great episode on the explanatory comma that similarly addresses the assumptions made about the audience. Love what you're doing; can't wait to see what your write on next.

Expand full comment

No posts