Does anyone else find it ridiculous when people claim that a particular non-native plant is part of the “traditional diet” or “traditional medicine” of a particular culture? For example, I’ve heard many times that sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) is the main staple in the “traditional” Okinawan diet, or that aloo gobhi (potato and cauliflower curry) is part of “traditional” Indian cuisine. If “traditional” is arbitrarily defined as going back only to the start of the use of the plant rather than the start of the culture, it seems to lose its significance. “Our culture has used this plant ever since our culture began to use this plant” does not convey anything meaningful. If people like to eat/use a non-native plant, fine, no problem at all, but to claim that it’s a cultural tradition seems disingenuous.
The way that I see it (as a plant nerd), the only case in which this would make sense is if the founders of a particular culture brought the non-native plant with them when they first permanently settled the place. Does this resonate with anyone?
It resonates with me but more in the way of it being interesting to think about where the line should be drawn. Like is vodka traditional to Russia? Potatoes to Ireland? Tomato sauce to Italy or curry to India? Because I consider them trafitional even though none of the ingredients are native to the countries listed.
I feel like tradition is never isolated to itself. One culture influences another culture influences another. So like someone could argue curry isn’t traditional in India because of the use of American ingredients. And could argue Jamaican curry isn’t traditional because it came from Indian sugar cane workers. And Japanese curry isn’t authentic either because it was introduced to them through the British after their colonization of India.
Also I just wanna emphasize that I’m not trying to downplay what you said; I think it’s a super interesting question and one worth talking about!
Now I wonder at what point an old culture can be considered superseded by a new one. If colonisation wipes out the traditions of a culture to the point that no one remembers them, and the people only know the crops introduced during times of colonisation, and the indigenous peoples become united and speak a new language (e.g. English), can that be considered the start of a new culture with new traditions that involve non-native plants?
A thought-provoking topic indeed.
Personally I think what is left after a colonial genocide could definitely be considered a new culture, but I feel like it depends on how the people within it identify. Like sticking with the topic of indigenous peoples, the loss of traditions and language is a big deal, but that doesn’t mean that the culture is different. Carrying on with whatever fidelity is possible seems like a fair way to cobsider yourself a continuation instead of a whole new deal.
Sorry if that’s incoherent lol I’m not running at 100% today. I like talking about semantics
All good. I don’t think that there is a single correct answer to this.