Ok, what I said isnât racism.
Iâve always had far better luck when the kitchen is populated with people that grew up primarily with the food in question. In fact, the idea that a lot of people go into a sushi restaurant, see âasiansâ, decide it might be an authentic place, when the owners and cooks are korean or chinese, is racist - that is, going by appearance.
Either you believe in people cooking what they grew up with, or you donât ( and sure thereâs plenty of cases of fusion and cross-trained people and who even knows what âethnicityâ a californian might be ), but going by âyellow face for asian foodâ when thereâs a massive cultural difference between all the regions and countries⌠thatâs wrong.
And, I think I can say that I get better japanese food when the staff is japanese. Of course I donât know in advance, and sometimes I leave a restaurant without knowing, but often itâs clear.
I went to Mom and Pop Lithuanian this weekend, and I heard lithuanian coming out of the kitchen, and the place had that particular taste ( dill and cream ) that I think of as lithuania, from traveling there. Could canadians have cooked that way? Sure, they could â but itâs unlikely, no?
I donât choose restaurants based on who I think might be cooking â how can you know before you show up â but on reflection I think itâs a reasonable postulate.
Youâve probably had excellent Thai, Vietnamese or Burmese food from Chinese chefs who spent years cooking in exile in those respective countries. Granted, itâs not so likely in the case of Japanese food, since the Japaneseâs nativist inclinations tend to relegate Chinese help to dishwashing. But thereâs no reason a good Chinese chef with respect for seafood and good knife skills cold not learn to master sushi.
Speaking of âvast cultural differencesâ are you saying Andy Ricker shouldnât cook Thai food, Ivan Orkin shouldnât make ramen, or you shouldnât expect good Thai food out of the kitchen at Kin Khao or Chinese food at Mr. Jiu?
If you read what many people in LA (including. J. Gold) say about Rickerâs both Thai restaurants it would support bbulkowâs point (especially when they are compared to Thai restaurants with Thai chefs in LA). And overall I would also agree with this assumption in many ethnic (not only Asian) restaurants which often tend to have better quality food if they have native chefs (obviously there are always some exceptions)
Of course itâs reasonable to have higher expectations of a cuisine if itâs native to the chef preparing it, but thereâs always âthe exception that proves the ruleâ but it is NOT reasonable to assume the contrary (i.e., that the sushi cannot be good because Cantonese voices are coming from the kitchen).
I havenât done time in LA since the 80s, so I canât comment on his judgement on Thai food in LA (which was uniformly icky-sticky back then) but Iâve found him to be off the mark in other areas.
Perhaps we should take Bulkowâs (and apparently your) logic on âmassive cultural differencesâ one step further and ask if we should even place any value on the judgement of a Caucasian person on sushi or other Asian cuisine in the first place. (Maybe thatâs why M. Bauer likes to have Cecilia Chiang whisper in his ear when he eats Chinese.)
Sushi can be good if Cantonese voices come out of the kitchen but there is a significant higher chance that the sushi will be better if Japanese voices would be heard out of the kitchen.
And there is a significant difference between cooking a dish and eating it - not everybody has the talent, knowledge and tools to cook but everybody has tastebuds to eat and judge a dish. Obviously the more diverse and high quality dishes you have tried in your life the more likely you will be able to judge the quality of a dish (and it definitely also helps if you can cook to better understand the quality of a dish). But it is also obvious that there is a cultural difference in judging a dish - somebody who has eaten the dish (or type of cuisine) for large part of his/her life will have different (and more defined) view on it and its quality.
Youâve made my point. If you were to read reviews on a Japanese language website of cheeseburgers or New England clam chowder served in Japan youâd be understandably wary, even if the reviewer was perceptive enough to alert that Bulgarian was spoken in the kitchen rather than American English.
But as I said we are talking about two different issues now - cooking a dish and reviewing it. You are mixing now these both even though they have nothing to do with each other. The original point from bulkow about cooking a dish and origin of the chef is still very true.
Thank you, Gary. I totally agree with you.
Speaking as a Japanese-American (who, like most Sanseis, married out of our race), there is absolutely no reason, NONE, why a non-Japanese could not learn to do Japanese food just as well as any native-born Japanese.
Itâs essentially a simple cuisine - brought to a very elegant, high profile - but it lacks the incredible depth, variety, and sheer wealth (historically, agriculturally, and financially), of the great Chinese cuisines, which influenced all of Asia.
To say that a non-Japanese cannot make good sushi, to me is mind-boggling. Thatâs like saying that chef Sophina Uong, whom we consider one of the most talented chefs in the Bay Area, should only be cooking Cambodian food! âHow could she possibly do a good job cooking Southern food at Pican or California cuisine at Revival?!â But she did and weâre happy to have experienced so many amazing meals from her.
To get back to Japanese food, Douglas Keane/Cyrus made a pretty amazing pork teriyaki equivalent the last time we were thereâŚor do you think his being a haole should have disqualified him from even thinking about doing so? Gosh, I missed my chance to be racially offended at him doing one of my favorite (non-native Japanese) dishes! Darn.
Talent crosses over racial lines, every time. We should all be acknowledging the truth of that, by now.
Which nobody has said in this discussion
a wikileaks thread links the origins of raw sushi eatng to china 600 B.C⌠eventually it made it reached japan within a thousand years where they refined it to an art form.
the korean have a different history, they are also contenders in raw sashimi eats, albeit with a hot bean sauce flavor.
doesnât matter to me whether staff speaks korean or chinese. in the burbs, itâs one or the other, iâm looking for quaity sashimi, most times itâs not present. higher possibility of a+ quality sashimi if japanese speakers present, patrons will know, will come,
it relates to marketing. just sushi rolls, or higher end sashimi imports, patrons will know and respond.
whatever language u hear, look for a âsashimiâ blackboard.
i donât see it as âracismâ, just targeted maketing, WUSIWUG.
In bbulkowâs defense, I find that there is a degree of orthodoxy found in aspects of Japanese cooking (primarily omakase and kaiseki dining) that is entirely unique in the culinary world. Every culture has retained aspects of heritage and craft; modernized, borrowed and improvised, but few have upheld such strict conventions in approach to preparation and presentation in the way that the Japanese have done so- at least in regards to widespread exported food cultures; ie. Filipino-Americans, Chinese-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans, Korean-Americans, etc. To be clear, Iâm not talking about current fads like omurice or explicit appropriations like California rolls, which donât adhere to any inherent ideas, values or principles of the âborrowedâ society (ie. exploitative Westernized interpretations of food culture). I canât think of any other food culture so widely adopted and generally embraced by North American society that is so expressly defined by itâs cultural origins. Itâs an interesting dichotomy of the country in general; the concept of post-war modernism vs. traditionalism. I think thatâs part of the reason why itâs strongly safeguarded by the Japanese, and partly why so many outsiders are receptive - itâs the whole rather than the sum of itâs parts. As someone whoâs traveled rather exhaustively across Japan, my take-away is that a true omakase or kaiseki âexperienceâ is very much a broader cultural experience that transcends the typical dining out routine. Iâm not sure it can be wholly realized (or as effectively executed) by the most aspirational Chinese, Korean, Mexican, etc. âitamaeâ in the Bay Area - at least on the high end.
Identifying orthodoxy within a cuisine is probably a subjective test rather than objective - if it aligns with your personal preferences of food and style, I could see that one would identify that as being more orthodox.
Omakase and kaiseki are really just different forms of high dining - tasting menus in these current times, no? The Chinese version would be the imperial banquet of dynasties past, where you get extremely exquisite food prep in terms of both presentation and cooking techniques used including preparation of ingredients leading up to the meal. This style of cuisine is still available, in the mainland, HK, Singapore, and other places where demand exists. It is not meant for an individual typically due to cost.
Regardless though, that orthodoxy exists in Chinese cuisine and within the culinary history of many of the other ethnic groups you identified in much of the same contexts.
I donât doubt thatâs true at all, but my point was that such styles and preparations of Pan-Asian cuisine have not been adopted wholesale in the same way that more traditional Japanese styles of kaiseki or omakase, for example, have been embraced by Western kitchens.
Iâm not sure thereâs been that much adoption by the kitchens so much as diners? And even then, just by diners understanding that as an option in sushi restaurants?
Tasting menus are not a new thing to the annals of Western culinary culture is it? Do you feel that the kaiseki format has influenced Western menus/service significantly? Examples? I thought a point being made earlier was that the orthodoxy made it harder for outsiders to adopt? Too lazy to scroll back and verify that comment.
Omakase-style isnât really prevalent in Western menus either because itâs not really possible with the portion sizes. Omakase in Japanese cuisine works only because the serving sizes are individual and chef is your server most of the time. Can one even order omakase-style at a tapas restaurant?
What I meant was that, in contrast to your example of the Chinese imperial banquets, this style of Japanese cooking is far more prevalent throughout the Western world. Most cities have at least one kaiseki restaurant, which is, by definition, a style of cooking rooted in culture and tradition.
I think my use of the term âorthodoxâ may have been misinterpreted above; or perhaps I just disagree with your assessment. While culinary preferences are certainly subjective to an extent, I wouldnât apply subjectivity to the time-honored aspects of this specific style of cuisine (using kaiseki ryori as example).
There are indeed endless examples of modern interpretations of kaiseki, and I visited many in Tokyo (Ryugin, Ginza Okuda, Ishikawa, etc) yet each of these restaurants are still very much entrenched in the heritage of âWashokuâ.
Iâm referring specifically to the meticulousness of preparation and presentation. While kaiseki relies heavily on the freshness of seasonal and regional availability, the main components of dishes rarely vary; much like the seasons themselves. Again, traditionalism contends with modernism as preparation is streamlined in order to highlight the purity and essence of raw ingredients. As a result, flavors are both subtle and understated, yet arguably most effective in their âcleanlinessâ. Aesthetics also play a key factor; achieving decorative beauty to compliment seasons, flavors, etc. This exists in all aspects of decor, plating, service, timing. The ceramics and pottery, often sourced from regional artisans, which are custom made to supplement the âexperienceâ. These are distinctly Japanese cultural traits, grounded in tradition. The relationship with specialty vendors who often sell exclusively to certain chefs or produce/farm for similar purposes. I suppose you can draw certain parallels to haute French cuisine in some respects, yet thereâs a decidedly more ânationalâ ancestral legacy to these aspects of Japanese cuisine.
I may be way off, but I think what bbulkow may have been leaning towards, is that for many Westerners, the above are all desirable and incentivizing aspects of the experience. Weâre looking for a certain âauthenticityâ which may well be manufactured, if not irrelevant in most other cuisines, yet exists intrinsically in certain types of Japanese cuisine. Styles might vary between sushi chefs (Edomae/aburi/etc) for example; and the quality, sourcing and focus of ingredients vary as well- in Japan, every establishment is known for something they purportedly do best. Yet thereâs a prevailing customary bedrock that simply canât be divorced from the craft. I donât think people seek that out as much in other types of meals, in part because Iâm just not sure whether that kind of exhaustive experience can be found.
My comment on the subjectivity of orthodoxy was that some may view a certain cultureâs orthodoxy as more orthodox than they would view a different cultureâs. Donât get me wrong, I do find kaiseki to be very traditional as well as orthodox, but I find that thereâs a lot of orthodoxy in similar levels as kaiseki in French, Chinese, Spanish, Korean, and other cuisines.
wrt Chinese imperial cuisine, thereâs likely 1 restaurant in any major city in the world that could do the same but only available for a large party/banquet given the scale of preparation. WRT SF ⌠not sure what the best Cantonese seafood restaurant is but I imagine if you ask them to throw the full banquet and pay them the required monies, they can make something happen. Perhaps Jia Yun might be a suitable example.
Ryugin, Ginza Okuda, Ishikawa, etc. all make for great examples of modern kaiseki in Japan but I was asking about the influence of kaiseki in Western kitchens because thatâs what I thought you meant.
On the points about local produce, plates, etc. I would wager that the tradition really is a result of just circumstance - produce didnât travel hundreds of miles to be sold at market because they wouldnât last given the time it took to transport goods around, so folks ate what was around and available. I would say this circumstance is applicable to just about every region in the world at some point. A chef trying to source the best ingredients ⌠all chefs try to do the same within the price range that they offer food at, some more so than others.
Kaiseki meals are not cheap last I checked so it certainly warrants they try to source the best ingredients by building relationships with those who provide them produce. That they adhere to these despite the availability of these products from all over the world today is something to be lauded but to take the totality of these things and put them on a pedestal is perhaps a bit much for me. I can respect that kaiseki chefs/practitioners try to adhere strongly to traditions, but what really prevents anyone from any background from adhering to/believing those beside the unwillingness of existing practitioners to teach those traditions to them?
I think thatâs what some of us are arguing here perhaps as well?! Probably shouldnât speak for others. If you break down all these things that make up the orthodoxy and compare them to how other cultures do it and the reasons for doing it, Iâm not sure the deltas are all that significant.
