This unit, I found a question from the reading guide very interesting: “What happens to an individual element of complex foodways when it is divorced from the surrounding culture, society, practices, etc.? For instance, is a Taco Bell taco eaten in Toronto still a taco? Still part of a foodways?”
When a Canadian or American person eats a taco from Taco Bell, it will not mean the same that it would for an Indigenous person from Mexico as this has not been part of their foodways for hundreds of years. I don’t think that this is a bad thing. This is a result of globalization, which has brought attention to different food items we wouldn’t have otherwise been exposed to. Continuing with the taco example, it is a well-known fact that tacos are a Mexican specialty, and that tacos from Taco Bell are nowhere near as good as the ones you can eat if you travel to Mexico. Big chains such as Taco Bell have “americanized” tacos but again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. They have modified a food item into something targeted towards their American consumers. Taco Bell isn’t claiming they sell the best, most “aunthentic” tacos.
I believe that knowing the origin of a food item does not divorce it from its culture. The fact that tacos are inherently Mexican will remain unchanged.
I find the concept of foodways hard to apply to non-Indigenous people. As discussed in Belasco’s text from last week, as consumers we have removed ourselves from the food-making process, which means that the food we consume is not part of our foodways, as it is not involved in our beliefs and behaviors like it can be for Indigenous People.
So, a taco eaten in Toronto is not part of a foodways. Is that bad? I don’t believe so.