Day: February 17, 2017

In class, we discussed authentic Chinese food as compared to the American- styled Chinese food. Growing up in an immigrant family from China, I’ve experienced both sides. I’ve grown up eating General Tso’s Chicken, Sweet ’n’ Sour Chicken, Egg Rolls, and the famous fortune cookies, but I’ve also eating the real deal. To me, good food is good food and it doesn’t matter much if it’s labeled as “authentic” or not. However, I think there is nothing inauthentic about American-Chinese dishes. I think a lot of these restaurant were created by Chinese people for the Chinese people. During the 1840s Gold Rush in California, many Chinese immigrants began to flood the country but they had no or extremely limited access to traditional Chinese ingredients. Because of this lack in ingredients, it was impossible to recreate the exact same dish. So these Chinese immigrants used what they could find in their homes to create these new dishes, including chop sued, one of the first Chinese dishes invented in the United States.

During this time, white Americans wanted almost nothing to do with the social and culinary customs of Chinese immigrants. Chop sued and many of the other American-Chinese basics that we know today weren’t created to satisfy the the palates of white Americans but rather the cravings of real Chinese people.

According to CNN, it wasn’t until after World War II in 1945 that mainstream Americans began eating and appreciating Chinese food in large numbers. By this time, the American-Chinese menu was already well established.

It’s not a question that American Chinese food is not the same as authentic Chinese food, but you can’t call it inauthentic either.

Our brief discussion in class on Wednesday about the abuse of the immigration system reminded me of one of my personal favorite movies, which some of you may know as it was pretty popular when it came out. It’s called “The Proposal” and it stars famous actors Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. The premise of the movie, for those who don’t know, is as follows: Margaret Tate, played by Sandra Bullock, is an executive editor at a book publishing company in New York City, who is only in the United States on a work visa, because she is natively from Canada. However, when she finds out that she is at risk of being deported due to a violation of said visa, she forces her assistant, Andrew Paxton (Ryan Reynolds), to marry her in order to keep her in the country, even though the two both hate each other. Of course, because this is how modern-day film always works, the pair end of actually falling in love with each other and actually wanting to get married, but that’s besides the point.

The real question here is not about their gradual transition from hate to love, but it is about whether or not their actions were ethical. We know that their actions are illegal, because marrying someone solely to keep them from being deported is considered fraud in the eyes of the U.S. justice system, but should this be the case? In my opinion, I believe that as long as the illegal party has grounds to be here and is not infringing on society in a negative way, then there’s nothing wrong with this concept. However, I am well aware that there are obviously people who think otherwise, and I’m curious to know what the rest of you think on this matter. Should Margaret be allowed to stay in the U.S.? Should Andrew be sent to prison for fraud? Are there other ways that this matter can be solved, in both Andrew and Margaret’s case and in similar cases in real life? Let me know your thoughts.