Food Discourse In Ecuador And Mexico

Food Discourse in Ecuador and Mexico
After the Mexican Revolution, the cuisine of corn – the food of the indigenous population and the mestizo poor – gained acceptance among the growing urban middle class. In contrast, in late 20th century Ecuador, the foods and cuisine of Zumbagua, an isolated, poor, and largely indigenous community, remained on the national cultural margins and were lookeddown upon even by upwardly mobile members of the community itself. In the works Que vivan los tamales! Food and the Making of the Mexican Identity by Jeffrey M. Pilcher, a history professor at the University of Minnesota and Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes, anthropologist Mary J. Weismantel, it is stated by Pilcher that the cuisine of corn was not accepted before the MexicanRevolution because elites identified corn as the food of the indigenous and the economically disadvantaged. Coincidental to Mexico’s concept of corn, the elite classes in Ecuador marginalized Zumbaguan foods because they were not part of the market economy. Zumbaguan people depended on subsistence agriculture based on crops such as barley. The Mexican Revolution in 1910 attributed to the elite and middleclass acceptance of the cuisine of corn and regional peasant cooking. This event advocated for this change of attitude and it romanticized indigenous culture and commoditized corn. In addition, the constant stigma that wheat was superior to corn developed into the theory that they both had the same nutritional factors, the malnourishment of the indigenous and lower classes originated by thepoverty. On the other hand, Ecuador never integrated Zumbaguan foods into their mainstream national identity, a revolution and an upheaval of the people should have happened to validate and incorporate the Zumbaguan cuisine. The power of the elites could have been utilized to promote the Zumbaguan culture and cease the constant hegemony towards them. Their cuisine was limited and scarce as a result ofthe isolation caused by dominant hierarchical ideologies. Food and cuisine structures the national identity of a country, strengthens family relationships along the process of a nation’s enlightenment through historical and social contexts.
The polarization of the social classes in Mexico and the exclusiveness of Mexican elites prevented the approval of the cuisine of corn before the MexicanRevolution. Upper class Mexicans viewed indigenous people as alcoholics, ignorant and promiscuous. (Pilcher, p.83). By being indigenous it was a representation of the lower classes. The rejection of this cuisine was reflected in the publication of cookbooks. Cookbooks only acknowledged few recipes from regional cuisine. Instead of publishing the more indigenous recipe of mole verde, the mole poblanofrom the fable about the nuns in Puebla making a concoction for the Archbishop that was visiting got published. (Pilcher, p.50). Likewise occurred with pozole, a majorly corn soup that was never included in cooking books because of its indigenous roots. (Pilcher, p.51) Constantly, the names of certain indigenous recipes were given more Europeanized names. For example, tortillas became theomelettes in the Mexican cookbooks. Elites as gente decente wanted to show their finesse to the world by not including the cuisine of corn in any literature work. (Pilcher, p. 46). On Christmas Eve, elites portrayed the importance of the emulation of European cuisine as a marker of social hierarchy. Their meals were based on expensive fish, fresh vegetables, and imported oils. (Pilcher, p.55). Theirdinners were always accompanied with imported wine and a roll of wheat bread. The ingredients of their dinners showed the significance of imported foods. The cuisine of corn could not be part of their elegant meals because it was a crop that was part of the daily meals in indigenous households. Additionally, upper class Mexicans identified indigenous cooking and lifestyle as unsanitary.
As a...