Culinary Imperialism and Catfish
I am currently working in extending what is known as culinary
imperialism into the world history currucula. The subject runs the
gammut from changes in the colonizer and colonized diets to how
dinning is employed to increase social distance between the rulers and
the ruled or exhalt the hegemon's staus to attacks on McDonalds in the
East. I can send a bibliography to any interested parties.
I will attempt to sponsor a panel on the subject at the next World
History Association annual meeting, which is in Long Beach, California
around June 22, 2006. If any would like to join in this project,
please send me an abstract.
However, I am also interested in hearing from any on the list of
events, dairies, travellers accounts or literary references that draw
attention to this aspect of the culture of imperialism, i.e the
exclusion of subalterns from colonial banquets, the pejorative
descriptions of indigenous diet or eating habits etc. from sources as
varied as a dinner scene in The Lover to racially tinged aspects of
the fight over Vietnamese shrimp exports. My personal favorite is
Salt of the Jungle, but its a struggle fitting it into this academic
paradigm! The universal often is.
Marc
Marc,
Were there racially tinged aspects of the fight over Vietnamese shrimp
exports? Not that I'd too surprised. But wasn't one of the
interesting aspects of the shrimp trade battle that Vietnamese
Americans are fairly substantially involved in the US shrimp industry?
Markus
I'm afraid that's "used to be substantially involved in the former US shrimp
industry" at this point. In a description of the economic damage caused by
Katrina, today's Washington Post notes as an afterthought that "It may also
be hard to get gulf shrimp [in the future], but because 90 percent of the
shrimp Americans eat is imported, supplies should be plentiful." There's
some painful irony for any of us who have been involved in the US-VN shrimp
trade disputes.
Andrew
Markus asked regarding "racially tinged aspects of the fight over
Vietnamese shrimp exports." The catfish dispute of 2002-2003 seemed to me
racially tinged, or at least xenophobic in tone. Trent Lott pushed
Congress to declare that only American-born catfish could be called
catfish. And the Catfish Farmers of America ran advertisements warning of
a "slippery catfish wannabe," saying such fish were "probably not even
sporting real whiskers" and "float around in Third World rivers nibbling on
who knows what." (NY Times 7/22/03).
The magazine Agri Marketing even gave a "Best of Show" award to the Catfish
Institute's "Raised in the U.S.A" marketing campaign, which built support
for the American farm-raised catfish industry after it was supposedly
"invaded" by a "foreign fish fraud."
Erica
It's probably useful to keep in mind that the average person's thinking
regarding trade and economics is almost always vulnerable to the charge
of xenophobia. "Outsourced jobs", "energy self-sufficiency", and even
"support of local producers" are all extremely popular concepts steeped
in concepts of nationalism and identity that don't really stand up to
rigorous analysis. At least not economic analysis. As such, the
catfish battle certainly saw interest groups grabbing on to standard
populist tools.
In the end, surely none of us really wanna think too much about what
any of the bottom feeding fish species are nibbling on, whether in the
US or elsewhere! And yet, who could deny their deliciousness, whether
blackened cajun style or caramelized in a clay pot.
Markus
The catfish wars are indeed a sad story, beginning with the labeling
requirements and tariffs, and the story has only gotten worse over the
years.
Support for the charge of xenophobia comes from none other than Senator John
McCain:
"I believe a far more accurate assessment is provided in the Far Eastern
Economic Review, in its feature article on this issue: For a bunch of
profit-starved fisherfolk, the U.S. catfish lobby had deep enough pockets to
wage a highly xenophobic advertising campaign against their Vietnamese
competitors." (Posted on McCain's senate.gov Web site, dated Dec 18, 2001)
This summer, Mississippi State University issued a report comparing domestic
catfish and Vietnamese imports, concluding that "both fish were about the
same in terms of quality and safety indicators." If that wasn't enough, the
majority of their taste-testers preferred the imports 3 to 1. After the
predictable return volley from the Catfish Farmers of America and the
Catfish Institute (both based in Mississippi), MSU hastily labeled their
study "preliminary."
It's interesting to compare the standards of evidence used in the catfish
debate. The U.S. catfish groups simply questioned the methodology of the
MSU study, but provided no counter-evidence demonstrating safety concerns
with the catfish. On the other hand, a great deal of legislation has been
passed based on nothing but rumor and innuendo, as summed up by one Alabama
catfish advocate: "They raise these fish in big cages out in the Mekong
River...There have been a number of safety issues connected with that."
Certainly an interesting lesson for Vietnam in democratic politics and
free-market economics.
:: Mike High
Alexandria, VA
PS. Senator McCain's statement goes into great detail about the dumping
accusations and the labeling scheme, and includes some choice quotes:
"Proponents of this ban used the insidious technique of granting ownership
of the term "catfish" to only North American catfish growers as if
southern agribusinesses have exclusive rights to the name of a fish that is
farmed around the world, from Brazil to Thailand."
"These fish were indeed catfish until Congress, with little review and no
debate, determined them not to be."
"...after preaching for years to the Vietnamese about the need to get
government out of the business of micro managing the economy, we have sadly
implicated ourselves in the very sin our trade policy claims to reject."
PS2. Oddly, the US catfish industry's best case against the imports is based
not on the disease-bearing catfish, but the FDA's recent discovery of
"unapproved drug residue" (antibiotics) in the catfish from several
Vietnamese companies. As I understand it, we ban the agricultural use of
these antibiotics for fear that germs will build up a resistance to
them--certainly a valid health concern, but not an immediate personal threat
on the order of salmonella.
While the FDA simply issued an "alert," the states of Alabama, Mississippi,
and Louisiana enthusiastically "detained" all imported catfish in August.
The standard of evidence is again quite slight, as expressed by Alabama
Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks: "One test ought to be enough to show
they are still using chemicals being banned." (Aside from the assumption
that everyone in the Vietnamese catfish business does things in the same
way, it's not clear from his statement if even that one test had been
performed on the "basa"catfish that have been "detained.") In contrast,
Louisiana had tested and released 39 tons of seafood (out of 415 tons that
had been impounded) as of August 26th. I imagine Hurricane Katrina has
pretty much submerged this issue for a good while to come.