5 ms·

Acting like an opposing nation copied (STOLE) something important to its cultural identity is a classic nationalist talking point. Here is the exact same articl

Acting like an opposing nation copied (STOLE) something important to its cultural identity is a classic nationalist talking point. Here is the exact same article with Vietnam and fish sauce cut and pasted for Japan and sushi! https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/3016361/sushi-not-japan-how-raw-fish-and-rice-became-world-favourite https://www.scmp.com/lifestyle/food-drink/article/3016361/su...

bllguo 6y ago
That seems a bit disingenuous. While I am no expert and cannot verify if the claims in your article are true (though Wikipedia asserts the same), it is clearly different from the OP. Your link is (presumably) rooted in accepted historical fact, while the OP is speculation
- rangibaby 6y ago
  Skillful propaganda uses facts to make a conclusion or conjecture that is misleading. > Sushi is not from Japan Some people will stop reading and share it on Facebook here > Sushi reached China, then Japan from its origins along the Mekong River in Southeast Asia, and was later exported to the US and the rest of the world Actually, it's from China! Now even more people will stop reading and share it on Facebook > The dish started out as fermented whole fish preserved with inedible salted rice Wait, that doesn't sound like sushi to me > However, the sushi we know today tastes and looks very different to how it did centuries ago. First of all, the rice in the original “sushi” was not intended to be eaten. Mixed with salt, it was used to preserve the fish and then thrown out. Three paragraphs in and below the fold, the article itself admits that the dish being discussed isn't sushi. We're talking about "sushi" here! > And sushi’s origins aren’t even Japanese, says Nobu Hong Kong executive sushi chef Kazunari Araki, who has more than 20 years of sushi-making experience. "origins". Also, it's a Japanese guy saying it. Even Japanese ADMIT sushi is not Japanese! > The combination of rice and fish, he explains, originated in the third century along the Mekong River in Southeast Asia, where countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are now situated. 1,700 years ago people preserved fish in rice! > By the 12th century, this method of fermenting fish had travelled from the Mekong to China, and then on to Japan, where it was called narezushi. However, in the 16th century, in the Edo period, Araki says, vinegar replaced salt in the preservation process, which was a major step forward in the development of sushi. It also gave birth to the name sushi – which translates to “vinegared rice”. I'm pretty sure this means the dish that we call sushi now is Japanese. Do you think most people will have read this far down into the article? The rest of the article is about how sushi is actually American. According to this article, sushi is from South East Asia, Chinese, and America! Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion to you?
  - bigpumpkin 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sushi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sushi
  - pmachinery 6y ago
    > it's from China! [...] 1,700 years ago people preserved fish in rice! > The rest of the article is about how sushi is actually American. According to this article, sushi is from South East Asia, Chinese, and America! Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion to you? No, it sounds like an absurd misrepresentation of an interesting article on the history and origins of sushi from a veteran Japanese chef that, unless you're genuinely as ignorant as you're making yourself look with this post, you can't possibly be serious about.
  - sibane 6y ago
    You're trying way too hard to spin this fairly typical food article with a mildly provocative title into a propaganda piece. The text literally calls sushi Japanese multiple times, including in the first sentence of the main text. But I guess that doesn't count if we assume no one reads that far and if they do, they probably won't understand it?
- newyankee 6y ago
  China is definitely a Master now in information warfare where it can create pieces like above (with borderline subjectivity involved) and attack right at points of cultural significance of its enemies. Just because it is written in a specific style that seems very conducive for discussion does not mean there is no agenda behind it. Off course depending on the internal degree of skepticism you have your interpretations will vary. China is brilliantly using the West's own style against them in undermining its enemies, so next time there is a conversation involving a few folks in a restaurant, how someone will narrate a story that fish sauce was Roman gift to Vietnam or some other bastardized version of the story. Tbh this is what happened in most of the history.
dnprock 6y ago
This sushi article is an example of SCMP smearing history. > By the 12th century, this method of fermenting fish had travelled from the Mekong to China, and then on to Japan, where it was called narezushi. It's a substantial claim that fermented fish and rice travelled through China to Japan. Food travels very slowly. If it travelled by land, it'll morphed with local ingredients. South China has more rice based dish. North China has less rice and more wheat in their cuisines. If fermented fish and rice travelled that far through land. It'll leave lots of traces in Chinese cuisines. It's likely that Japanese got fermented fish and rice directly from South East Asia, without going through China. Japan has been trading with SE Asia region for centuries. Hội An is a city port in Vietnam with Japanese remnants. Fish sauce travelled from Rome to Vietnam, through China. Sushi travelled from SE Asia to Japan, through China.
- sibane 6y ago
  Do you have anything to back up your claims or is it just that you'd prefer China not to be involved? Because I've found multiple sources backing up the claim that China was in fact involved. This book (https://books.google.com/books?id=iyQps4i41JoC&pg=PA344&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=iyQps4i41JoC&pg=PA344&redi...) mentions Southern China as one of the origins of narezushi. This one (https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-history-of-sushi-2015-2?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-history-of-sush...) goes even further by specifically talking of Southern China as the origin and suggests that the influence of northern invaders explains why you won't find much signs of it in modern China. This documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jXkTLbYFE&feature=youtu.be&t=186 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jXkTLbYFE&feature=youtu.be...) links sushi to the introduction of rice cultivation to Japan. Through China. And apparently (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/17154/1/AP-v40n2-209-226.pdf https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/17154/...) when it comes to the arrival of rice to Japan, it's not a question of whether or not it came through China, but which of the three possible routes it took.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
himinlomax 6y ago
Well, copying is not stealing.
peroporque 6y ago
Copying from another culture is not "stealing". Every culture that ever existed developed and evolved by integrating ideas that it learned from other people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bllguo 6y ago

That seems a bit disingenuous. While I am no expert and cannot verify if the claims in your article are true (though Wikipedia asserts the same), it is clearly different from the OP. Your link is (presumably) rooted in accepted historical fact, while the OP is speculation

rangibaby 6y ago
Skillful propaganda uses facts to make a conclusion or conjecture that is misleading. > Sushi is not from Japan Some people will stop reading and share it on Facebook here > Sushi reached China, then Japan from its origins along the Mekong River in Southeast Asia, and was later exported to the US and the rest of the world Actually, it's from China! Now even more people will stop reading and share it on Facebook > The dish started out as fermented whole fish preserved with inedible salted rice Wait, that doesn't sound like sushi to me > However, the sushi we know today tastes and looks very different to how it did centuries ago. First of all, the rice in the original “sushi” was not intended to be eaten. Mixed with salt, it was used to preserve the fish and then thrown out. Three paragraphs in and below the fold, the article itself admits that the dish being discussed isn't sushi. We're talking about "sushi" here! > And sushi’s origins aren’t even Japanese, says Nobu Hong Kong executive sushi chef Kazunari Araki, who has more than 20 years of sushi-making experience. "origins". Also, it's a Japanese guy saying it. Even Japanese ADMIT sushi is not Japanese! > The combination of rice and fish, he explains, originated in the third century along the Mekong River in Southeast Asia, where countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia are now situated. 1,700 years ago people preserved fish in rice! > By the 12th century, this method of fermenting fish had travelled from the Mekong to China, and then on to Japan, where it was called narezushi. However, in the 16th century, in the Edo period, Araki says, vinegar replaced salt in the preservation process, which was a major step forward in the development of sushi. It also gave birth to the name sushi – which translates to “vinegared rice”. I'm pretty sure this means the dish that we call sushi now is Japanese. Do you think most people will have read this far down into the article? The rest of the article is about how sushi is actually American. According to this article, sushi is from South East Asia, Chinese, and America! Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion to you?
- bigpumpkin 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sushi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_sushi
- pmachinery 6y ago
  > it's from China! [...] 1,700 years ago people preserved fish in rice! > The rest of the article is about how sushi is actually American. According to this article, sushi is from South East Asia, Chinese, and America! Does that sound like a reasonable conclusion to you? No, it sounds like an absurd misrepresentation of an interesting article on the history and origins of sushi from a veteran Japanese chef that, unless you're genuinely as ignorant as you're making yourself look with this post, you can't possibly be serious about.
- sibane 6y ago
  You're trying way too hard to spin this fairly typical food article with a mildly provocative title into a propaganda piece. The text literally calls sushi Japanese multiple times, including in the first sentence of the main text. But I guess that doesn't count if we assume no one reads that far and if they do, they probably won't understand it?
newyankee 6y ago
China is definitely a Master now in information warfare where it can create pieces like above (with borderline subjectivity involved) and attack right at points of cultural significance of its enemies. Just because it is written in a specific style that seems very conducive for discussion does not mean there is no agenda behind it. Off course depending on the internal degree of skepticism you have your interpretations will vary. China is brilliantly using the West's own style against them in undermining its enemies, so next time there is a conversation involving a few folks in a restaurant, how someone will narrate a story that fish sauce was Roman gift to Vietnam or some other bastardized version of the story. Tbh this is what happened in most of the history.

dnprock 6y ago

This sushi article is an example of SCMP smearing history. > By the 12th century, this method of fermenting fish had travelled from the Mekong to China, and then on to Japan, where it was called narezushi. It's a substantial claim that fermented fish and rice travelled through China to Japan. Food travels very slowly. If it travelled by land, it'll morphed with local ingredients. South China has more rice based dish. North China has less rice and more wheat in their cuisines. If fermented fish and rice travelled that far through land. It'll leave lots of traces in Chinese cuisines. It's likely that Japanese got fermented fish and rice directly from South East Asia, without going through China. Japan has been trading with SE Asia region for centuries. Hội An is a city port in Vietnam with Japanese remnants. Fish sauce travelled from Rome to Vietnam, through China. Sushi travelled from SE Asia to Japan, through China.

sibane 6y ago
Do you have anything to back up your claims or is it just that you'd prefer China not to be involved? Because I've found multiple sources backing up the claim that China was in fact involved. This book (https://books.google.com/books?id=iyQps4i41JoC&pg=PA344&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=iyQps4i41JoC&pg=PA344&redi...) mentions Southern China as one of the origins of narezushi. This one (https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-history-of-sushi-2015-2?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/the-complete-history-of-sush...) goes even further by specifically talking of Southern China as the origin and suggests that the influence of northern invaders explains why you won't find much signs of it in modern China. This documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jXkTLbYFE&feature=youtu.be&t=186 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31jXkTLbYFE&feature=youtu.be...) links sushi to the introduction of rice cultivation to Japan. Through China. And apparently (https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/17154/1/AP-v40n2-209-226.pdf https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/17154/...) when it comes to the arrival of rice to Japan, it's not a question of whether or not it came through China, but which of the three possible routes it took.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 6y ago

himinlomax 6y ago

Well, copying is not stealing.

peroporque 6y ago

Copying from another culture is not "stealing". Every culture that ever existed developed and evolved by integrating ideas that it learned from other people.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]