Saturday night my friends and I went to a Mexican restaurant. I'm very passionate about food, and I was worried I was going to be disappointed with the restaurant. Surprisingly, the food was not just good, but resembled the food I have in my city. The way they prepared it, the ingredients used, and the presentation were as close as possible to the traditional dishes served in Mexico.
After this satisfying experience of finding food that made me feel at home, I started thinking about the way traditional dishes from different parts of the world represent culture. How something as simple, yet as complicated, as food can be a major component of the cultural identity of a country or ethnic group. With this experience, questions started to appear: is it possible that the food, and the way it is prepared can bring together people of the same culture and break ideological barriers? Do chain restaurants who employ cultural elements of certain countries for their food affect the appreciation of the culture? Is it possible to understand another culture, their problems and history, through the way they prepare their traditional dishes? While I don't have the answers to these questions and I can't even begin to elaborate on them, I do understand this: food is another way of connecting with the world. Something as simple as a well prepared taco can say as much about my culture as any history book. I really do want some tacos now...
1 Comment
At the end of the novel, Awiti comments:
"No matter the destruction that ensues, I have learned no amount of vengeance can replace what I lost. There is no reparation great enough to substitute for what was stolen. Is there truly a cost for an altered destiny? There is nothing that can overturn the curse of a nation that was once blessed." I agree with Awiti's sentence where she mentions that "no amount of vengeance can replace" what she lost. Although retaliation is commonly the first reaction humans have when offended or attacked, it has never worked as a mean to resolve a conflict or as a reparation. Actions taken as vengeance can make as much damage as the initial conflict, usually creating a cycle of hostility and distrust between the two sides of the dispute and leading farther away from resolving the issue. For example, a group X(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) of individuals in a certain area is being discriminated by another, somewhat larger group Y(ethnic, racial, ideological, religious) existing in the same geographical place. Group X decides to have vengeance by attacking violently every time there is an injustice towards them. After some time, group Y starts retaliating with violent attacks too. Eventually the violence rises so much that they decide to segregate the area, which leads to more disputes over what pieces of land go to which group. Hate from both sides increasingly grows to the point where a clear division is marked between the two new areas, each belonging to one group. Eventually both groups start talking again, but from a distance, always careful not to turn their backs on the other. From broad global view point, disputes like the one mentioned above have been happening since the beginning of human interactions. Without stating which specific conflict is the example referring to, more than three historical examples surely are on your mind already. Sometimes history is very clear, sometimes it is blurry as to which State or group offended first and which other was just seeking reparation, but the outcome is always a bigger, more complicated conflict. As history has proved many times before, Awiti will never be able to find peace as long as she keeps hoping to obtain that reparation through damage. My conclusion: It is important to realize that direct retaliation or vengeance is not the solution to international conflicts between states or groups. Such actions, instead of leading towards peace, create a deeper wound and more hate. |
AlonsoI'm from Mexico City. I love cooking and eating Mexican food. Archives
December 2018
Categories
All
|