I don’t really understand this need to swiftly transform the immigrant diet to an “American” one that was supposedly healthy (granted this article was based on reactions and ideas from about 100 years ago). I guess since it was hard to define what exactly an American diet was, there was even more of a need to give it a clear meaning by patriotic names, references, and histories and impose this on immigrants. I felt that the American diet being somewhat unclear reflected an American identity that was still unclear. Basically, the vibe I got from the dieticians was insecurity. The need to have immigrants eat American food was forced under the guise of how “unhealthy” immigrant children needed to be healthy for the country’s future. There was also fear of immigrant food becoming more and more present in the everyday.
Anyway, eventually there was more openness to all kinds of food and this still has good results today. Food is a way to get to know a culture, a general identity of a certain group of people. Being open to food is being open to the people who share origins with that food. This openness doesn’t need to be immediate, though. It should happen, but gradually and at every individual’s own pace. This idea of assimilation shouldn’t be shoved down anyone’s throat. I remember for the first few years of my life, my dad was staunchly against eating anything non- Indian, non- South Indian, non-Kerala. But eventually, as I grew and wanted to eat paella, General Tso’s chicken, fried chicken, or Hawaiian pizza, he was there with me. And it shouldn’t really be assimilation per se. More like a melting pot attitude to food. I like knowing our dinner table can see Italian sausage with peppers and onions one night, jerk chicken another, and channa dal with chappatis on another.
-Christina
