>“Japanese food was created here, and only Japanese know it,” Mr. Kadowaki said in an interview. “How can a bunch of foreigners show up and tell us what is good or bad?”
I feel like this has a xenophobic undertone to it; nobody's showing up anywhere, it's a guide which attempts to find good restaurants and food around the globe; what makes the Japanese in his view so specially qualified to judge the food? If the food was only found to be tasteful for Japanese tastes then I doubt it would have made its way into the Michelin guide, no?
It's another facet of gentrification. A restaurant owner may really love having a small, local clientele of regulars and a very good atmosphere due to that fact. Then one day he gets awarded a Michelin star and suddenly thousands of tourists descend on his place and swamp it with unwanted business. Is it xenophobic to suggest he might prefer to go back to the previous situation?
>Is it xenophobic to suggest he might prefer to go back to the previous situation?
This is totally a wrong interpretation of what I was saying. I was only commenting on that line in particular, not saying that what he was doing in general is bad, but the pernicious idea that only Japanese are qualified to judge Japanese food is something I find needlessly exclusive and overall false; this is what is xenophobic, not the desire to shut one's restaurant off in the face of pressure. However if he is only shutting it off to "foreigners" then it really is xenophobic to do so, but understandable nevertheless.
> but the pernicious idea that only Japanese are qualified to judge Japanese food is something I find needlessly exclusive and overall false
It's Japanese food for a reason. That's how Japanese see it and that's the taste they value. Once everybody start judging it, it's likely to change to match their tastes. Japanese food made to taste good for non-Japanese wouldn't be Japanese food anymore. Japanese-inspired? Yep.
It's like pizza. Is Hawaii pizza "Italian food"? I wouldn't say so. I know many people who can't stand true Italian pizza, but love all those Italian-pizza-inspired foods.
If they feel that only their culture can appreciate the goodness of the food adequately, then _why do they care_ about what foreigners or Michelin judges say about it? Cook the same great food you normally do, and don't worry about the critics. (I know, easier said than done.)
Let's say I had a great pizza and tell a friend about it without much details. The friend thinks pineapple on a pizza is license to kill, but he's not aware where he's going to... Bottom line is he is disappointed and tells everyone that this place suck.
If the places doesn't give a fuck and keeps serving only Hawaii pizza, they'll keep having disappointed customers and 1-star reviews without much explanation. They could bend over and start making special pizza for those occasions. But that'd destroy some of the charm for the people who absolutely love pineapples on their pizzas.
I guess this is loose-loose situation. The only solution could be if people gave either good review or no review at all. But then some objective criticism would be lost...
Also, if it was xenophobic. So what? Doesn't a businessman have the right to choose who to do business with?
I believe free trade is a good thing, but seems like many americans mistook free trade for gunboat diplomacy (see opening of Japan). In my understanding free trade is free as in free will: both parties voluntarily take part in the exchange of goods and services.
Also one can be patriotic in a way that he/she (no xe!) wants to preserve the cultural heritage, which is not only buildings and artifacts in museums, but also customs. Customs can be preserved by people sustaining them by continuously acting according to them. Local customs can be ruined pretty quickly via a huge influx of tourists.
Example: In my younger day I could see elderly people sitting in the small parks around playgrounds and children playing at some parts of the city. Now in these parts of the city what I can see is playgrounds have been closed. Public places have been closed, no elderly talking, playing chess on a summer afternoon. Instead there are "party tourists" littering, being loud and drunk an sometimes acting atrociously as early as 2pm on weekdays. A local custom (socialization of the locals) has been wiped by tourism. Slowly locals are freeing the "party district".
I can understand why one wants to avoid such situation (even as Michelin -tourists are not this troublesome, but starts a trend, which can even lead here). Is this xenophobic, then be so. I understand why people want to be xenophobic then.
All: if you want to understand how not to comment on Hacker News, take a look at this flamewar and never, ever behave like this on HN. It's emblematic of all that this site is not for. Note also the bannage occurring below.
The only other option is to government-mandate that, right? Not saying there aren't other unfortunate consequences of allowing a business owner to choose who they serve, but I'd say the larger problem is just that people can be... well... humans aren't great. However, putting the power in the hands of the law probably doesn't fix that.
Ultimately, why would you want to support someone who doesn't want you to be there?
Regardless, you've given me a new thing to think about. It's a complex issue for sure.
It surely helped to change how black people are treated in America, no government-mandate would mean "no blacks allowed" signs still hanging somewhere to this day...
Yet we don't allow random traveler to vote in local elections.
Modern travel is big specifically because the world is diverse place. If all societies would try to include anyone from anywhere, they'd become similar and traveling wouldn't be as great.
By that logic you'd have to argue that children, inmates, mentally ill and those that for whatever reason didn't register to vote in states where it's required are not the part of society.
Including outsiders in the society doesn't make societies less diverse. If anything it's making them more diverse because otherwise similar societies might include different outsiders and differ more because of that.
Not every argument is supposed to be double-sided.
Mix-mashing all societies just get them to lowest common denominator. Similar societies usually receive similar outsiders. Sometimes even outsiders from same place. Which just makes them even more similar. For example, north Germany and Bavaria are quite different places and have different culture. Yet same set of immigrants come to both. Local food is different, but kebabs are the same.
If each society can choose who they want to accept and who they don't want... Then we can agree that each society can judge for itself.
> Like the hoteliers who don't allow gay people to stay ?
Even that is OK in my opinion. The market will sort it out. There are clubs where gay people can have a good time. If gay accomodation becomes a niche market, there will be people seizing that opportunity. The law shall not discriminate people, but telling people what to think and forcing them doing stuff they don't agree with is dictatorship.
I've never understood that argument; if you invite unkown customers you are inviting the public. I mean if you really want to keep it private you would have to have a guest list imho. Which is fine, but you can't have a guest list that says "not that kind of people". Private is for things like Sento imperial palace, where you guide people through your property, but when you let people in freely it is my belief that at some point that will have to be interpreted as public space (like trademarks).
If you have a book that gives more nuance to this "a private buisness is not a public space" I would be glad to read it.
How so? Just because it has word "private" in its customary english name? If you translate it to other languages word private often disappears. And if it remains it serves to separate state owned buisnesses and privately own buisnesses. Both participate in public market, have random customers from the public and are regulated so that they need to display prices and not refuse service to some people based on owners stupidity.
But nevertheless in intrudes on the public sphere, to simply deny its effect on the culture surrounding it and the society which uses it is naive. The idea that businesses exist apart from everyone and everything is a pernicious one.
I also don't like junkies. Is that also wrong? Why do you tell me what i should like, and based on what ethics do you tell me what is morally right?
What if I tell you that liking foreigners is morally wrong where I live? We don't hurt them, but we don't like them because they keep telling us what we should do, and keep trying to conquer us for a millennia? Still we live in peace since a long time, we treat our guests well, but we don't categorically like them. Each and every guest can become an individually liked person, and even unliked ones are treated fairly (given a fair trial before execution ;) Hint for autists: It was a joke)
It's morally wrong to hate something for an attribute they have no control over.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone who chooses to drink? Not really.
Is it morally wrong to hate someone born addicted to opioids, or born with fetal alcohol syndrome? Of course.
Being born "foreign" is no different, especially if you, as this chef does, live in a country where "nationality" is coterminous with "ethnicity" to the point multi-generational immigrant groups (ethnically Korean Japanese, for example) are considered "Not Japanese" by many Japanese people.
I thought we were talking about this comment. You created a strawman, and now use derogatory comment toward me. This makes me end this discussion here.
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines and ignoring our request to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
We've banned this account for taking this thread into a wretched flamewar, as well as for violating the site guidelines repeatedly and ignoring our requests to stop.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Indeed. Were this statement made in the USA, there wouldn’t even be this attempt to rationalize it. Torches and pitchforks would be at the ready almost immediately.
Xenophobia could be part of it, but there’s probably an element of disdain (possibly deserved) for people who just chase Michelin restaurants but don’t have the palate necessary to really appreciate the food.
An exaggerated analogy: someone who’s never had wine buys a bottle recommended by a highly respected wine expert, tries it, and goes, “Oh, that really is good!”
The solution Ferrari uses to avoid some newly rich entrepreneur buying their limited series super cars is to require buyers to be proper collectors. They can't resell the car within N years, have to own M previous ferraris etc.
This model is harder for restaurants, they actually want to avoid these Pokémon-style foodies and find the people that really appreciate the food. Not sure what the model would be for restaurants. Once you hit 3 stars you stop accepting tourists?
There are documentaries about the uber-rich foodies who treat these restaurants like Pokemon. Given the personalities involved, it doesn't surprise me that some chefs should actively want to shun them.
Since that article, Kadowaki's actually now listed as a 2-star Michelin restaurant.
Don't know what's happened since then, but I remember the name because it's the only Michelin restaurant I've ever dined in. Small world coming across it on HN!
For what it's worth, the staff was pleasant and welcomed us as foreigners, asking where we were visiting from. Kadowaki came by at the end of the meal to put the finishing touches on his signature dish, and was just as welcoming. Pricey though!
I suspect they are? I mean, if they weren't showing up then the restaurant would be out of business, no?
It does read a bit xenophobic, but it might be a pressure thing more than a nationality thing. People try to put pressure on those establishments. Sometimes, it's the chefs themselves who put the pressure on, sometimes it is visitors.
People have committed suicide due to the pressures involved in trying to get onto the list and to maintain, or increase, their stars. Failure is difficult and may even result in financial ruin, as if restaurants weren't already inherently risky.
So, I'm not sure that it is so much xenophobic as it is simply not wishing to be so publicly judged and/or pressured.
>I suspect they are? I mean, if they weren't showing up then the restaurant would be out of business, no?
Sorry, I was under the impression that he's talking about the Michelin rating people showing up and telling them how good or bad his food is rather than simply visiting and writing a guide which contains his restaurant. I can understand the pressure of being on the list and maintaining one's position, but there's no reason why he couldn't let that slip; being lower on the list is better than not being on the list at all in terms of prestige, so he obviously doesn't care much what a "foreign" guide writes about him.
The idea that only Japanese people can judge Japanese food seems to me very xenophobic; if that wasn't his intention then he should have spoken in general rather than targeting "foreigners".
English may not be his native language and I'm just speculating. To me, it read more about the pressures exerted and the desire to not have to conform to an ideal presented by people who aren't members of the same culture.
I'm not sure that qualifies as xenophobic, or even a bad thing. Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)
From what I've read, and a documentary, it's pretty high stress to meet the expectations and to do things in a certain manner. I can understand the desire to get out from under that. By foreigners, it may mean, 'not my usual customers.'
So, I'm not sure if that's really xenophobic. I'm not seeing any fear involved, just displeasure about external pressures.
A little nitpick, but "-phobia" suffix does not strictly mean fear, though that is its origin. It can also mean hatred.
>Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)
No? I never said that; he shouldn't be pressured, but merely the act of serving foreigners or having his restaurant listed is not pressure to change -- in fact, if he changed, wouldn't that defeat the whole point of the rating system? He was rated on the Japanese food he serves, not the Canadian food.
No. 'Foreigners' very likely simply means 'foreigners' here. Japanese society is incredibly xenophobic and has quite well-known problems with casual, socially accepted racism.
Foreigners can say it's tasty, but local people undertand the chemistry and culture of specific ingredients and why it was choosen for a dish. That's not specific for a japan, but there is big culture around those thinking in japan. It's similar to how pop-culture-nerds can explain you every little reference in a movie or game, and explain you the history of specific genres, features and franchises. For a cook, it might be more satisfying to cook for someone who challanges him, who can talk to im on his level, instead of just catering the masses who gulp down the food and complain about nonsical things, which doesn't bring him forward.
You can call it xenophobic, it probably is, but likely it's based on real experiences.
>but local people undertand the chemistry and culture of specific ingredients and why it was choosen for a dish
So can foreigners who are familiar with Japanese food, or non-ethnically Japanese people in Japan. I understand your analogy to pop-culture nerds but I don't think it applies here - one can become on the same level as the nerd and talk to him in that way, but this chef is exclusionary and saying that no matter how much expreience a "foreigner" has with Japanese food, he can never understand it or properly judge it. This is not unique to Japanese food, I have seen this exact line echoed by a famous Japanese architect too with regard to his work.
If he so wishes he should cater to people familiar with food, if anything those people are more "on his level" than a random Japanese person, so I really can't see why he's drawing the line at "Japanese" rather than at "familiar and experienced with food". I'm sure most Japanese just gulp down the food, and some surely do complain.
Real experience or not, I think this kind of attitude has little place in modern society.
this chef is exclusionary and saying that no matter how much expreience a "foreigner" has with Japanese food, he can never understand it or properly judge it.
You're torturing the quote to look for intent that simply is not there. Maybe he does feel that there is no level of assimilation sufficient to judge Japanese food, but it's simply not there. It's an imprecise blanket statement made in the context of reviewers showing off their lack of assimilation with judgements seen as very incongruous with local tastes.
meh, shrug. If this was any local cuisine other than Japanese -- who we have been taught to see as xenophobic -- the obvious follow-on retort wouldn't be about xenophobia, but about appropriation and generally more defensive of the culture's prerogative to define itself.
I feel like this has a xenophobic undertone to it; nobody's showing up anywhere, it's a guide which attempts to find good restaurants and food around the globe; what makes the Japanese in his view so specially qualified to judge the food? If the food was only found to be tasteful for Japanese tastes then I doubt it would have made its way into the Michelin guide, no?