#preservation of one's own culture | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tiktaaliker · 2 years

Text

@m1sosazai ok ok ok SO i guess this rant is more about pokemon evolution in the darwin sense of the word but i have to talk about that first before getting into the domestication stuff (or i guess i don't have to but i want to)

putting it under a readmore because it really is horrifically long i am so sorry

to start it off, one thing ive thought about a lot is how a pokemon evolving compares to irl evolution. and surface level? not a ton of similarities other than "one creature becomes different creature." like, normally, evolution is VERY gradual, takes place over an EXTREMELY long time, and affects the species over many generations rather than the individual. Pokemon evolution, on the other hand, happens all at once, is instantaneous, and affects the individual and not the species (especially since all pokemon hatching from eggs are base evos? VERY wack when trying to compare it to macroevoltuion)

AND speaking of eggs, egg groups???? VERY wack. usually in an evolutionary sense a split into a different species is defined by members of the different populations no longer being able to have fertile offspring (not gonna get into the weird world of hybrids here because that would make this even LONGER, so im just going to. completely ignore stuff like wolfdogs and domestic/wildcat hybrids for now lol). so, like, if you're trying to fit pokemon into our normal taxonomic system, all pokemon sharing egg groups can TECHNICALLY be considered different breeds of the same species. like dog breeds? rattata is to copporajah as a chiuahua is to a Samoyed. and then you add in the fact that a lot of pokemon have double egg groups and then it gets even MORE complicated and weird

so, yeah, sure, pokemon evolution and irl evolution aren't one to one analogs, and same with pokemon species and animal. seems pretty obvious, looking at it. but then the question is, what IS evolution?

one thing i considered is that it's something akin to metamorphasis in insects and amphibians. and in some aspects, sure yeah it works! there's even some pokemon where the middle evolution is a cocoon. there's some pokemon that are amphibians with a tadpole/larval stage!! but the main thing that makes it kinda weird is that, with the exception of the handful of baby stage pokemon? you can throw the first or second stage into the daycare and still get an egg. one of the biggest things about having larval stages and undergoing metamorphosis is that reproduction isnt possible until the final stage!! like for bugs especially that is the entire point.

ALSO, there's the fact that a pokemon's evolution is STILL a different pokemon than the previous stages. a bullfrog tadpole is still a bullfrog, and a monarch butterfly caterpillar is still a monarch butterfly, but a weedle is not a beedril. im mostly basing this on the fact that later stage pokemon can learn different moves/can get different abilities after evolving, and even get different typing. i guess you COULD argue that a line of pokemon are technically all still the same species of pokemon a la caterpillar and butterfly, and the moves/abilities are just the result of form begetting function, but that's not as fun for me in this fantasy creature scenario so i am opting to ignore that point. so while i like the comparison superficially im not gonna just accept it at face value. there is TOTALLY more going on here.

so, my theory is that its sort of a strange mix of darwinian evolution and larval stages. it's the mechanics of larval stages with the end result being more similar to irl evolution. i think that, both genetically and physically, pokemon are far more malleable than real animals. something i also think is interesting that plays into all this is the fact that pokemon usually evolve via "experience" and "levels," which is basic in a gameplay sense but biologically? absolutely FASCINATING to me. this is already really long and i havent even gotten to what i really wanted to talk about so ill keep this short but i think pokemon are beings with EXTREMELY high amounts of potential energy, and can all somehow harvest energy released by defeating other pokemon, convert it into biomass to become stronger, and can sometimes use that energy to trigger evolution. but that's probably something i should save for a different multi-paragraph ramble in the future lol

and THEN there is actual literal macroevolution happening in pokemon that we can directly see the results of. regional variants!! pokemon that have different typing and appearances and sometimes even evolutions that change in different regions!! and SHELLOS MY FRIEND MY BELOVED SHELLOS. there is direct and stated evidence that populations of pokemon CAN undergo macroevolution. this is a canon thing that happens.

but even then, it occurs WAY faster and WAY more dramatically than how it would occur naturally. like there's some that could be argued mightve happened after a split a very long time ago (aka all the alolan variants, island ecosystems ARE fantastically good at isolating populations after all), but then we have the hisuian forms. so, the hisui region in legends arceus is roughly analogous to meiji era japan (if i recall correctly??) so ill be operating under the assumption that the game takes place sometime between 1870 to 1900. also fun fact because i literally just realized this, the origin of the species was older than the meiji era. the more you know.

ANYWAYS, i would like to talk about sneasel. im focusing on that line in particular both due to the connection to hisui/sinnoh (weavile being introduced in gen IV) and the fact that it's a new evolution INSTEAD of a modern evolution. so, for a lot of pokemon, its not exactly clear where they ACTUALLY originated from; it can't always be assumed that the region where we first see them is where they're ACTUALLY from, like with yungoos being stated to "imported from another region" into alola. so with the other hisuian forms (especially pokemon that can't be found normally in dpp), it's plausible to think that MAYBE these are much older offshoots of pokemon that died out entirely and no longer occupy the region, like with the slugma line, or even the qwilfish line, since it's plausible that after a while after hisuian qwilfish died out, regular qwilfish might've just migrated from somewhere else to the waters around iron island and filled in the nice again. or its like the zoura and basculin lines, which are both. pretty much already dead. or with ursaluna and kleavor, its that the conditions they required to evolve don't really happen anymore. i could go into a whole OTHER rant about electode but im already getting off topic enough

ANYWAYS. sneasel. i believe that of all the regional forms sneaseler is the wildest in terms of implications. first of all, TWO new types, fighting and poison? every other hisuian pokemon other than the zoura line have at least 1 shared typing from the other forms. and unlike kleavor, which evolves ALONGSIDE scizor, sneasel evolves into sneaseler INSTEAD of weavile. a hisuian sneasel cannot evolve into a weavile. so what happened??? what i am trying to imply is that maybe hisuian sneasel came BEFORE the modern dark/ice senasel, and evolved in the darwinian sense to fill a different niche. hisuan sneasel is implied to be a more direct hunter, while the typical sneasel is infamous for stealing other pokemon's eggs. additionally, im basing on hisuian sneasel coming first on the fact that it's REALLY unlikely for a species to re-evolve a trait that was previously lost.

considering that hisuian sneasel and sneasler were around as recently as the 1900s, that's like. a relatively VERY short time for something that major to change. im guessing that sneasel got REALLY close to complete extinction but eventually bounced back as the modern form via a bottleneck situation, but that still seems like a very short time for something that major to happen? so like. to try to sum my thoughts up quickly because i am becoming hyper aware of how LONG this is getting holy SHIT, something about the nature of pokemon as a whole allows them to evolve in a darwinian sense MUCH faster than in real life; since just being in a region can change a pokemon's evolution, its possible that maybe outside conditions can actively cause mutations in the egg, allowing a population to adapt faster and more efficiently to their environment?

and so, FINALLY, i can actually talk about domestication. the whole point of this rant in the first place????? whoops.

in real life, domestication is a VERY long, VERY arduous process. it's pretty much a type of targeted evolution. it's usually either a very deliberate process in terms of selectively breeding for desirable traits, like with a dog's temperament or a sheep's wool production. its NOT something that can be done quickly, and there has to be a trait to select for in the first place. there are also some cases of self-domestication, where the animal directly benefits from being comfortable around humans. for example, domestic cats and house mice are both self-domesticated.

my theory is that, in the modern day, EVERY pokemon is technically domesticated.

so, here's some of my reasoning; for one, you can't just go outside and grab a raccoon from your yard and expect it to act like a pet. it's not a domesticated animal, its WILD. on the other hand, you CAN grab a cat or pigeon off the city street and you have a chance of taming it down if you work at it enough. they're not wild, just feral. in the same reasoning, a wolf is gonna be WAY more dangerous to be around than a stray dog, and a wolfdog (i know i said i was going to ignore those but shhhh its my rant i can pick and choose what i discuss in too much depth) is going to have a SIGNIFICANTLY different demeanor than a dog.

in the modern pokemon games, however, you can just catch whatever pokemon you want and you can pet it and dress it in funny hats. you can catch a literal dragon and like 5 minutes later PLAY FETCH WITH IT. additionally, you, the trainer, are never directly attacked by wild pokemon. you have to fight them, but only with your own pokemon. when you run out of pokemon, you are able to flee and get to a pokecenter relatively unharmed!!! no matter where you were!!!

in hisui, on the other hand? these pokemon are actively trying to kill you. most pokemon in the game, when they see you , will either run away or just start swinging. and, yeah, you can catch them, and can use them in battle, but there's a few things different; there's no set turn order, with each pokemon going once per round. you just gotta hope you're fast enough to get a hit or two in. there are NO double battles. the only time you fight more than one pokemon are with diamond/pearl clan, who don't use pokeballs; i like to think that they don't actually directly command their pokemon in these battles, maybe they give a few but its mostly just the pokemon doing their own thing. and in those, you only get one pokemon at a time. this, along with akari/rei's trouble with pikachu not listening, implies that it's typical for a trainer to not have as much... i woudn't call it control, that sounds too harsh, but i think its more like the trainer and pokemon don't have as much immediate understanding on how the whole battle thing is supposed to work, i guess.

so at some point between the time of legends: arceus and modern times, pokemon as a whole became domesticated. i think it's reasonable to think this something that COULD happen in that span of time, since i already explained here my thoughts on how pokemon can undergo change much quicker and at a much larger scale than irl animals.

as to how it happened? for one, i feel like the whole thing the diamond and pearl clans are doing with both nobles and just the pokemon they partner with is like. a perfect example of domestication. like they are probably more likely to keep pokemon that do well with humans around their settlements, and just like. idk i feel like whole noble thing could end up with domestication even if its completely accidental. like im pretty sure the ride pokemon in particular are probably self-domesticated at LEAST.

but ok, my WILDEST theory as to why even in legends you can catch a pokemon that wants to rip your arms off and five minutes later chill out with your new buddy? and how pokemon as a whole went from being potentially deadly to a mild inconvenience while traveling between towns? pokeballs. it was pokeballs.

so, like, i think catching a pokemon in a pokeball is kinda similar to evolution in pokemon, in that the energy involved in the process allows for rapid and dramatic change. like, ok, a big motif with evolution? the pokemon is shrouded by a glowing bright light. what happens to a pokemon when it's caught? there's a bright light before it enters the pokeball. its definitely WAY less of that energy than with evolution, but i think it's probably VERY similar. so pretty much part of the whole appeal with pokeballs is that it speeds up the domestication process in the same way evolution speeds up... evolution. it's the pokemon universe's equivalence of selectively breeding wolves to make a dog (and falling into my previously proposed theory of an individual pokmeon acting almost like a species in terms of evolution)

and then, in legends arceus, you're expected to catch a LOT of pokemon. you're probably going to catch multiple of most of the pokemon. and you're ALSO gonna be releasing these pokemon. those are no longer wild pokemon, they're feral, and mixing in with the rest of the population. over time, this mass catching and releasing for research ends up adding a LARGE amount of domestic pokemon to the wild. with pokemon being so adaptable, its possible that these pokemon pass their better temperament towards humans onto their offspring, and now there are pokemon that are more domestic without ever being caught, and all this compounds over several generations until pokemon are no longer trying to murder every person they make eye contact with.

ok hm i think all that might sound a bit colder than i wanted it to? im mostly just having a moment about how being a pokemon trainer is inherently an act of love and trust going both ways. you have to trust your pokemon! your pokemon has to trust you! and a pokeball is a symbol of that trust and also the result of people trying to form a bond with these strange creatures!!!! and i just think that it would be really, REALLY cool if, the pla protag's effort to make people trust pokemon more is also causing pokemon to trust people more!!!! it goes BOTH WAYS.......

ok ok ok and as a final note, my thoughts on starter pokemon!! i think they were the earliest attempts at domesticating pokemon, and the process was a lot more similar to irl domestication rather than the pokeball theory. I like to think that maybe the Cyndaquil at least was captive bred (its kinda a mouse and kinda a ferret and BOTH of those are domesticated animals). the Oshawott is a bit iffy, but based on the final evolution im guessing it was chosen specifically for battle prowess. ROWLET tho. ROWLET. IT'S FALCONRY. IT'S FALCONRY!!!!

falconry is a REALLY old practice that i find EXTREMELY fascinating because. yeah those are still completely wild animals even today pretty much every falconry raptor is going to be wild caught. but falconry is also a thing of trust and understanding the bird's wants and needs and!!! it just fits SO well with the themes of pokemon!!! literally the whole reason why i started thinking about pokemon domesticity so much was because i could NOT stop thinking about decidueye falconry ever since the starters for legends arceus was revealed.

EDIT because i forgot to mention!! so i think that with the starters, by modern times they're all 100 percent completely domesticated to the point of no longer naturally being found in the wild. sure, youll find some wild ones sometimes, but theyre gonna be random, small clumps of pokemon probably released by a trainer that was breeding them. like feral cat colonies. typically you're only gonna be finding a starter from a pokemon professor, or a breeder specifically focusing on starters. they used to have wild populations in the wild (ie sinnoh starters found the wild in legends arceus) but all eventually just. stopped existing in the wild for some reason or another?

anyways thank you for coming to my ted talk

#howling #yeah. yeah when i said 10 paragraphs i mightve been underestimating myself #long post #pkmn #pkmn hc #<- gonna be using that tag for my pokemon headcanon rambles from now on just to keep it in one place #also a lot of this was from the top of my head so some of the shit i say probably isnt accurate but like. whatever.#its my headcanon i get to make the rules #sorry if any of the stuff i explained seems obvious i just really enjoy explaining shit like this #writing it out makes it make more sense in my own brain #this is about the same length as some of the history offers preservation chapters. whoops.#hahaha little self conscious about this but whatever. i am trying so hard to not care about if people dont like my ideas #like. cringe culture might be dead but posting shit like this makes me feel like its going to come back but just for me in particular #speculative pokescience

3 notes · View notes

no-passaran · 2 months

Text

Genocide experts warn that India is about to genocide the Shompen people

Who are the Shompen?

The Shompen are an indigenous culture that lives in the Great Nicobar Island, which is nowadays owned by India. The Shompen and their ancestors are believed to have been living in this island for around 10,000 years. Like other tribes in the nearby islands, the Shompen are isolated from the rest of the world, as they chose to be left alone, with the exception of a few members who occasionally take part in exchanges with foreigners and go on quarantine before returning to their tribe. There are between 100 and 400 Shompen people, who are hunter-gatherers and nomadic agricultors and rely on their island's rainforest for survival.

Why is there risk of genocide?

India has announced a huge construction mega-project that will completely change the Great Nicobar Island to turn it into "the Hong Kong of India".

Nowadays, the island has 8,500 inhabitants, and over 95% of its surface is made up of national parks, protected forests and tribal reserve areas. Much of the island is covered by the Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve, described by UNESCO as covering “unique and threatened tropical evergreen forest ecosystems. It is home to very rich ecosystems, including 650 species of angiosperms, ferns, gymnosperms, and bryophytes, among others. In terms of fauna, there are over 1800 species, some of which are endemic to this area. It has one of the best-preserved tropical rain forests in the world.”

The Indian project aims to destroy this natural environment to create an international shipping terminal with the capacity to handle 14.2 million TEUs (unit of cargo capacity), an international airport that will handle a peak hour traffic of 4,000 passengers and that will be used as a joint civilian-military airport under the control of the Indian Navy, a gas and solar power plant, a military base, an industrial park, and townships aimed at bringing in tourism, including commercial, industrial and residential zones as well as other tourism-related activities.

This project means the destruction of the island's pristine rainforests, as it involves cutting down over 852,000 trees and endangers the local fauna such as leatherback turtles, saltwater crocodiles, Nicobar crab-eating macaque and migratory birds. The erosion resulting from deforestation will be huge in this highly-seismic area. Experts also warn about the effects that this project will have on local flora and fauna as a result of pollution from the terminal project, coastal surface runoff, ballasts from ships, physical collisions with ships, coastal construction, oil spills, etc.

The indigenous people are not only affected because their environment and food source will be destroyed. On top of this, the demographic change will be a catastrophe for them. After the creation of this project, the Great Nicobar Island -which now has 8,500 inhabitants- will receive a population of 650,000 settlers. Remember that the Shompen and Nicobarese people who live on this island are isolated, which means they do not have an immune system that can resist outsider illnesses. Academics believe they could die of disease if they come in contact with outsiders (think of the arrival of Europeans to the Americas after Christopher Columbus and the way that common European illnesses were lethal for indigenous Americans with no immunization against them).

And on top of all of this, the project might destroy the environment and the indigenous people just to turn out to be useless and sooner or later be abandoned. The naturalist Uday Mondal explains that “after all the destruction, the financial viability of the project remains questionable as all the construction material will have to be shipped to this remote island and it will have to compete with already well-established ports.” However, this project is important to India because they want to use the island as a military and commercial post to stop China's expansion in the region, since the Nicobar islands are located on one of the world's busiest sea routes.

Last year, 70 former government officials and ambassadors wrote to the Indian president saying the project would “virtually destroy the unique ecology of this island and the habitat of vulnerable tribal groups”. India's response has been to say that the indigenous tribes will be relocated "if needed", but that doesn't solve the problem. As a spokesperson for human rights group Survival International said: “The Shompen are nomadic and have clearly defined territories. Four of their semi-permanent settlements are set to be directly devastated by the project, along with their southern hunting and foraging territories. The Shompen will undoubtedly try to move away from the area destroyed, but there will be little space for them to go. To avoid a genocide, this deadly mega-project must be scrapped.”

On 7 February 2024, 39 scholars from 13 countries published an open letter to the Indian president warning that “If the project goes ahead, even in a limited form, we believe it will be a death sentence for the Shompen, tantamount to the international crime of genocide.”

How to help

The NGO Survival International has launched this campaign:

From this site, you just need to add your name and email and you will send an email to India's Tribal Affairs Minister and to the companies currently vying to build the first stage of the project.

Share it with your friends and acquittances and on social media.

Sources:

India’s plan for untouched Nicobar isles will be ‘death sentence’ for isolated tribe, 7 Feb 2024. The Guardian.

‘It will destroy them’: Indian mega-development could cause ‘genocide’ and ‘ecocide’, says charity, 8 Feb 2024. Geographical.

Genocide experts call on India's government to scrap the Great Nicobar mega-project, Feb 2024. Survival International.

The container terminal that could sink the Great Nicobar Island, 20 July 2022. Mongabay.

[Maps] Environmental path cleared for Great Nicobar mega project, 10 Oct 2022. Mongabay.

#shompen #genocide #stop genocide #india #indigenous #indigenous peoples #indigenous rights #human rights #anthropology #stateless nations #end occupation #andaman and nicobar islands #nicobar islands #great nicobar #💬#asia #geopolitics #ecocide #sustainability

17K notes · View notes

guinevereslancelot · 18 days

Text

got my friend a silver sixpence for her shoe bc she got engaged (and she's estranged from her parents over it) and she told me she's getting married barefoot 😂

#she had never heard of the sixpence either lmao #something old something new something borrowed something blue and a silver sixpence in her shoe #anyway my mom still has hers from her wedding saved for me #and i thought oh dang my friend's mom probably wont give her one so i ordered one for her #but clearly she is ok abt it bc she never heard of that tradition 😂#she asked me what culture it was from #technically yes my grandma passed it down probably from her mom who was irish but i thought it was pretty universally known #anyway this is my clown shoes friend who's highschool bf is paying her rent #i really shouldn't have given her anything but im trying to be supportive in order to preserve the peace in the friend group #but she makes it so hard lol #at least she has a job offer finally #so maybe she will pay a month or two of her own rent before they get married #🤡#anyway she's getting married barefoot outside in two months but has no idea where she's getting married #and yet plans to have invitations out in a couple weeks?#isnt the location supposed to be on the invitations lol #anyway apparently my gesture was wasted but she liked the fancy envelope i put the coin in 😂#i sent her the wikipedia link to the poem lmao #this has been a shitpost

1 note · View note

headspace-hotel · 3 months

Text

How people in the USA loved nature and knew the ways of the plants in the past vs. nowadays

I have been in the stacks at the library, reading a lot of magazine and journal articles, selecting those that are from over fifty years ago.

I do this because I want to see how people thought and the tools they had to come up with their ideas, and see if I can get perspective on the thoughts and ideas of nowadays

I've been looking at the journals and magazines about nature, gardening, plants, and wildlife, focusing on those from 1950-1970 or thereabouts. These are some unstructured observations.

The discourse about spraying poisons on everything in your garden/lawn has been virtually unchanged for the past 70 years; the main thing that's changed is the specific chemicals used, which in the past were chemicals now known to be horribly dangerous and toxic. In many cases, just as today, the people who opposed the poisons were considered as whackos overreacting to something mostly safe with a few risks that could be easily minimized. In short, history is not on the pesticides' side.

Compared with 50-70 years ago, today the "wilderness" areas of the USA are doing much better nowadays, but it actually appears that the areas with lots of human habitation are doing much worse nowadays.

I am especially stricken by references to wildflowers. There has definitely been a MASSIVE disappearance of flowers in the Eastern United States. I can tell this because of what flowers the old magazines reference as common or familiar wildflowers. Many of them are flowers that seem rare to me, which I have only seen in designated preserves.

There are a lot more lepidopterans (butterflies and moths) presumed to be familiar to the reader. And birds.

Yes, land ownership in the USA originated with colonization, but it appears that the preoccupation with who owns every little piece of land on a very nitpicking level has emerged more recently? In the magazines there is a sense of natural places as an unacknowledged commons. It is assumed that a person has access to "The creek," "The woods," "The field," "The pond" for simple rambling or enjoyment without personally owning property or directly asking permission to go onto another person's property.

There is very little talk of hiking and backpacking. I don't think I saw anything in the magazines about hiking or going on hikes, which is strange because nowadays hiking is the main outdoor activity people think of. Nature lovers 50-70 years ago described many more activities that were not very physically active, simply watching the birds or tending to one's garden or going on a nice walk. I feel this HAS to do with the immediately above point.

Gardening seems like it was more common, like in general. The discussion is about gardening without poisons or unsustainable practices, instead of trying to convince people to garden at all.

Overall, the range of animals and plants culturally considered to be common or familiar "backyard" creatures has narrowed significantly, even as the overall conservation status of animals and plants has improved.

This, to me, suggests two things that each may be possible: first, that the soils and environments of our suburbs and houses have sustained such a high level of cumulative damage that the life forms they once supported are no longer able to live, or second, that our way of managing our yards and inhabited areas has become steadily more destructive. Perhaps it may be the case that the minimum "acceptable" standard of lawn management has become more fastidious.

In conclusion, I feel that our relationship with nature has become more distant, even as the number of people who abstractly support the preservation of "wilderness" has increased. In the past, these wilderness preservation initiatives were a harder sell, but somehow, more people were in more direct contact with the more mundane parts of nature like flowers and birds, and had a personal relationship with those things.

And somehow, even with all the DDT and arsenic, the everyday outdoor spaces surrounding people's homes were not as broadly hostile to life even though the people might have FELT more hostile towards life. In 1960, a person hates woodpeckers, snakes and moths and his yard is constantly plagued by them: in 2024, a person enjoys the concept of woodpeckers, snakes and moths but rarely sees them, and is more likely to think of parks and preserves as the place they live and need to be protected. Large animals are mostly doing better in 2024, but the littlest ones, the wildflowers and bugs and birds, have declined steeply. It's not because "wilderness" is less; it seems more because non-wilderness has declined in quality.

#plants #nature #the ways of the plants #save the bees #kill your lawn

2K notes · View notes

rongzhi · 8 days

Text

A bit about Chuanqingren, one of the unofficial ethnic groups in China.

English added by me :)

Full video transcript below the cut:

Simply because these people are so rare, on cellphones and computers, there is no option to choose them. There’s no way to input them as an option.

As a result, often times when they go out, they will be questioned over having a fake ID. They’re not Miao, nor are they Han. And they’re certainly not any of the other 56 ethnic groups. In the 90s, they were designated as an unrecognised ethnic group (official designation). Their group is classified as Other. According to Ming Dynasty historical records, in earlier times, they were called “tu ren” (dirt people), “Li minzi” (～descendants of villagers), and also “xianmin”(羡） or “xianmin”（县） (~county people). Because their traditional clothing tends to be qing* colored (*may describe blue, green, or black), they’ve since been known as “chuanqing ren” (qing-wearing people). Early on, in the 1980s, there was already the write-in option of “qing group”. The first generation of resident IDs have “qingzu” printed on them.

Later, after many years of ethnic group discernment work, it was concluded that for the time being, they did not conform to China’s independent ethnic group determination standards. Therefore, they became recognised as “Chuanqingren”. Chuanqingren are mostly found in the northwest regions of Guizhou province. They use mandrills as their totem and their clothing tends to be qing. The qing color in question is a rather deep blue, one that near black.

There ware several explanations for the origins of Chuanqing people. One saying is that they are indigenous people of Guizhou. Another, more common explanation is that in the early Ming Dynasty, Yunnan’s king of Liang rebelled and Zhu Yuanzhang (Hongwu Emperor) dispatched 300k forces to consolidate the south. Then from south of the Changjiang, many immigrated to Guizhou and settled.

Historically it’s known as “transfer from the north, filling the south”, and Chuanqingren are simply the later generations of these soldiers and officers and immigrants to the south.

Now then the question comes: why are they only Chuanqing “people”, and not qing “ethnic group” or Chuanqing “ethnic group”?

Firstly, each ethnic group in our country has its own cultural/civilisation origins. For example, the Han ethnic group are the descendants of the Yellow Emperor and Flame Emperors. Therefore, they are also called “Yan Huang Zisun”(descendants of the Flame and Yellow Emperor).

Take for example the Miao ethnic group as well: The origins of the Miao ethnic group is that Chiyou led them in the alliance of the 9 Li tribes.

But Chuanqingren can’t find their origins. Most still simply say that they are a branch of the Han ethnic group. None of their special folk styles and customs have been completely preserved, including their language, which fewer and fewer of them are able to speak. Their clothing is even less common, which has led many to think that the clothing of the Tunpu people (another Han branch) of Anshun are that of Chuanqing people. As a result, many have taken Tunpu people as Chuanqing people.

In China, there are a lot of unique communities not within the 56 [official] ethnic groups. For example, the Mosuo people, the Kemu people, the Xia’erba people, the A’ke people, the Deng people, and more. The so-called “unrecognised” ethnic groups aren’t to say that their group’s identity can’t be distinguished. Rather, it’s that they still don’t meet our country’s criteria for judging independent ethnic groups. So, it’s only in order to reflect and affirm these unique communities that they are incorporated under the "not yet recognised” ethnic group.

In the multi-ethnic household of China, no matter which ethnic group, we all have a common name, and that is ”zhonghua minzu” (the people/nation of China). Do you identify with that? (Do you agree?)

#douyin #video #tiktok #少数民族

910 notes · View notes

milksockets · 6 months

Text

why scan?

scanning is something i've done for probably about 12 years now (i'm ancient, for this site), with varying degrees of regularity, intensity, etc. it has ratcheted up since the dawn of 2023, though, which begs the question: why? why put so much time into what could not-wrongly be considered a passive activity, hunched over a piece of clunky machinery with the express purpose of preserving others' creations? the answers are several, and fascinating (not really).

i am a [sober] drug addict. anything i pursue, consume, create--more often than not--ends up taking on addictive qualities. i'll eat the same specific food item for a month, then never want to see, let alone taste it, again. i'll listen to one song on repeat for days until i'd rather hear nails on a chalkboard than have it shuffle on and assault my ears. one of the reasons that my scanning has increased in volume recently is that i acquired library cards to the 3 nyc library systems: nypl, brooklyn, and queens. as soon as i was able to, i pillaged + plundered those fine centers of learning, leaving any given library with as many hefty scan-worthy books as i could [barely] carry. here, finally, was a *free* way of obtaining more + more + more visual media to consume.

2023 saw me get my first legal, full-time job. as such, my adjusting to that hellish reality resulted in a steep decline in my own personal creative output. collaging, writing, and rapping all fell to the wayside as i slowly acclimated to a life of work that almost everyone else my age has known for over a decade is generally unbearable + detrimental to the maintenance of outside pursuits. in times of famine within my own artistic harvest, scanning, archiving, and sharing others' work is a means of feeling as though i am still contributing to the global oeuvre.

there’s an element of losing my mental self in a series of physical motions that becomes almost automatic after some time. “zoning out” is not something endemic to my daily life; if anything, i’m almost always too zoned in. relief is necessary. especially considering the shitshow this past year has been in terms of my personal life.

i am a product of capitalism’s cultivating a craving for constant consumption.

it seems that visual content is only going to continue to get more + more uninspired. has everything been done? did social media ruin it all? in any case, i feel a need to document the past. to a degree, it’s my version of doomsday prepping. (god forbid books go extinct altogether.)

i have always gravitated towards solitary activities. this topic could be a thesis in its own right.

i thrive on external validation. this reliance is something i’ve improved upon over the past several years, but it hasn’t been altogether extinguished. even though the materials i scan are not of my own creation, i nevertheless feel a vague pride in showcasing them. occasional appreciation thereof satisfies this fixation on others’ attention, albeit in a diluted form.

i am fortunate to live in a city bursting to the gills with cultural institutions. i am also lucky enough to have some disposable income that can be directed toward fulfilling my ravenous desire for visual media.

((i keep getting messages about the specifics of my scanner + "process":

i have a cheap ass hp envy 6055e and i just use the software it comes with.

there's nothing special or fancy happening here, and i could definitely invest in a better and/or a large format scanner, etc. but i really just don't care enough and it's not like i'm getting paid for this lmao))

#words

1K notes · View notes

najia-cooks · 4 months

Text

[ID: First image shows large falafel balls, one pulled apart to show that it is bright green and red on the inside, on a plate alongside green chilis, parsley, and pickled turnips. Second image is an extreme close-up of the inside of a halved falafel ball drizzled with tahina sauce. End ID]

فلافل محشي فلسطيني / Falafel muhashshi falastini (Palestinian stuffed falafel)

Falafel (فَلَافِل) is of contested origin. Various hypotheses hold that it was invented in Egypt any time between the era of the Pharoahs and the late nineteenth century (when the first written references to it appear). In Egypt, it is known as طَعْمِيَّة (ṭa'miyya)—the diminutive of طَعَام "piece of food"—and is made with fava beans. It was probably in Palestine that the dish first came to be made entirely with chickpeas.

The etymology of the word "falafel" is also contested. It is perhaps from the plural of an earlier Arabic word *filfal, from Aramaic 𐡐𐡋𐡐𐡉𐡋 "pilpāl," "small round thing, peppercorn"; or from "مفلفل" "mfelfel," a word meaning "peppered," from "فلفل" "pepper" + participle prefix مُ "mu."

This recipe is for deep-fried chickpea falafel with an onion and sumac حَشْوَة (ḥashua), or filling; falafel are also sometimes stuffed with labna. The spice-, aromatic-, and herb-heavy batter includes additions common to Palestinian recipes—such as dill seeds and green onions—and produces falafel balls with moist, tender interiors and crisp exteriors. The sumac-onion filling is tart and smooth, and the nutty, rich, and bright tahina-based sauce lightens the dish and provides a play of textures.

Falafel with a filling is falafel مُحَشّي (muḥashshi or maḥshshi), from حَشَّى‎ (ḥashshā) "to stuff, to fill." While plain falafel may be eaten alongside sauces, vegetables, and pickles as a meal or a snack, or eaten in flatbread wraps or kmaj bread, stuffed falafel are usually made larger and eaten on their own, not in a wrap or sandwich.

Falafel has gone through varying processes of adoption, recognition, nationalization, claiming, and re-patriation in Zionist settlers' writing. A general arc may be traced from adoption during the Mandate years, to nationalization and claiming in the years following the Nakba until the end of the 20th century, and back to re-Arabization in the 21st. However, settlers disagree with each other about the value and qualities of the dish within any given period.

What is consistent is that falafel maintains a strategic ambiguity: particular qualities thought to belong to "Arabs" may be assigned, revoked, rearranged, and reassigned to it (and to other foodstuffs and cultural products) at will, in accordance with broader trends in politics, economics, and culture, or in service of the particular argument that a settler (or foreign Zionist) wishes to make.

Mandate Palestine, 1920s – early '30s: Secular and collective

While most scholars hold that claims of an ancient origin for falafel are unfounded, it was certainly being eaten in Palestine by the 1920s. Yael Raviv writes that Jewish settlers of the second and third "עליות"‎ ("aliyot," waves of immigration; singular "עליה" "aliya") tended to adopt falafel, and other Palestinian foodstuffs, largely uncritically. They viewed Palestinian Arabs as holding vessels that had preserved Biblical culture unchanged, and that could therefore serve as models for a "new," agriculturally rooted, physically active, masculine Jewry that would leave behind the supposed errors of "old" European Jewishness, including its culinary traditions—though of course the Arab diet would need to be "corrected" and "civilized" before it was wholly suitable for this purpose.

Falafel was further endeared to these "חֲלוּצִים‎" ("halutzim," "pioneers") by its status as a street food. The undesirable "old" European Jewishness was associated with the insularity of the nuclear family and the bourgeois laziness of indoor living. The קִבּוּצים‎ ("Kibbutzim," communal living centers), though they represented only a small minority of settlers, furnished a constrasting ideal of modern, earthy Jewishness: they left food production to non-resident professional cooks, eliding the role of the private, domestic kitchen. Falafel slotted in well with these ascetic ideals: like the archetypal Arabic bread and olive oil eaten by the Jewish farmer in his field, it was hardy, cheap, quick, portable, and unconnected to the indoor kitchen.

The author of a 1929 article in דאר היום ("Doar Hyom," "Today's Mail") shows unrestrained admiration for the "[]מזרחי" ("Oriental") food, writing of his purchase of falafel stuffed in a "פיתה" ("pita") that:

רק בני-ערב, ואחיהם — היהודים הספרדים — רק הם עלולים "להכנת מטעם מפולפל" שכזה, הנעים כל כך לחיך [...].

("Only the Arabs, and their brothers—the Sepherdi Jews—only they are likely to create a delicacy so 'peppered' [a play on the פ-ל-פ-ל (f-l-f-l) word root], one so pleasing to the palate".)

Falafel's strong association with "Arabs" (i.e., Palestinians), however, did blemish the foodstuff in the eyes of some as early as 1930. An article in the English-language Palestine Bulletin told the story of Kamel Ibn Hassan's trial for the murder of a British soldier, lingering on the "Arab" "hashish addicts," "women of the streets," and "concessionaires" who rounded out this lurid glimpse into the "underground life lived by a certain section of Arab Haifa"; it was in this context that Kamel's "'business' of falafel" (scare quotes original) was mentioned.

Mandate Palestine, late 1930s–40s: A popular Oriental dish

In 1933, only three licensed falafel vendors operated in Tel Aviv; but by December 1939, Lilian Cornfeld (columnist for the English-language Palestine Post) could lament that "filafel cakes" were "proclaiming their odoriferous presence from every street corner," no longer "restricted to the seashore and Oriental sections" of the city.

Settlers' attitudes to falafel at this time continued to range from appreciation to fascinated disgust to ambivalence, and references continued to focus on its cheapness and quickness. According to Cornfeld, though the "orgy of summertime eating" of which falafel was the "most popular" representative caused some dietary "damage" to children, and though the "rather messy and dubious looking" food was deep-fried, the chickpeas themselves were still of "great nutritional value": "However much we may object to frying, — if fry you must, this at least is the proper way of doing it."

Cornfeld's article, appearing 10 years after the 1929 reference to falafel in pita quoted above, further specifies how this dish was constructed:

There is first half a pita (Arab loaf), slit open and filled with five filafels, a few fried chips [i.e. French fries] and sometimes even a little salad. The whole is smeared over with Tehina, a local mayonnaise made with sesame oil (emphasis original).

The ethnicity of these early vendors is not explicitly mentioned in these accounts. The Zionist "תוצרת הארץ" "totzeret ha’aretz"; "produce of the land") campaign in the 1930s and 1940s recommended buying only Jewish produce and using only Jewish labor, but it did not achieve unilaterial success, so it is not assured that settlers would not be buying from Palestinian vendors. There were, however, also Mizrahi Jewish vendors in Tel Aviv at this time.

The WW2-era "צֶנַע" ("tzena"; "frugality") period of rationing meat, which was enforced by British mandatory authorities beginning in 1939 and persisting until 1959, may also have contributed to the popularity of falafel during this time—though urban settlers employed various strategies to maintain access to significant amounts of meat.

Israel and elsewhere, 1950s – early 60s: The dawn of de-Arabization

After the Nakba (the ethnic cleansing of broad swathes of Palestine in the creation of the modern state of "Israel"), the task of producing a national Israeli identity and culture tied to the land, and of asserting that Palestinians had no like sense of national identity, acquired new urgency. The claiming of falafel as "the national snack of Israel," the decoupling of the dish from any association with "Arabs" (in settlers' writing of any time period, this means "Palestinians"), and the insistence on associating it with "Israel" and with "Jews," mark this time period in Israeli and U.S.-ian newspaper articles, travelogues, and cookbooks.

During this period, falafel remained popular despite the "reintegrat[ion]" of the nuclear family into the "national project," and the attendant increase in cooking within the familial home. It was still admirably quick, efficient, hardy, and frequently eaten outside. When it was homemade, the dish could be used rhetorically to marry older ideas about embodying a "new" Jewishness and a return to the land through dietary habits, with the recent return to the home kitchen. In 1952, Rachel Yanait Ben-Zvi, the wife of the second President of Israel, wrote to a South African Zionist women's society:

I prefer Oriental dishes and am inclined towards vegetarianism and naturalism, since we are returning to our homeland, going back to our origin, to our climate, our landscape and it is only natural that we liberate ourselves from many of the habits we acquired in the course of our wanderings in many countries, different from our own. [...] Meals at the President's table [...] consist mainly of various kinds of vegetable prepared in the Oriental manner which we like as well as [...] home-made Falafel, and, of course vegetables and fruits of the season.

Out of doors, associations of falafel with low prices, with profusion and excess, and with youth, travelling and vacation (especially to urban locales and the seaside) continue. Falafel as part and parcel of Israeli locales is given new emphasis: a reference to the pervasive smell of frying falafel rounds out the description of a chaotic, crowded, clamorous scene in the compact, winding streets of any old city. Falafel increasingly stands metonymically for Israel, especially in articles written to entice Jewish tourists and settlers: no one is held to have visited Israel unless they have tried real Israeli falafel. A 1958 song ("ולנו יש פלאפל", "And We Have Falafel") avers that:

הַיּוֹם הוּא רַק יוֹרֵד מִן הַמָּטוֹס [...] כְבָר קוֹנֶה פָלָאפֶל וְשׁוֹתֶה גָּזוֹז כִּי זֶה הַמַּאֲכָל הַלְּאֻמִּי שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל

("Today when [a Jew] gets off the plane [to Israel] he immediately has a falafel and drinks gazoz [...] because this is the national dish of Israel"). A 1962 story in Israel Today features a boy visiting Israel responding to the question "Have you learned Hebrew yet?" by asserting "I know what falafel is." Recipes for falafel appear alongside ads for smoked lox and gefilte fish in U.S.-ian Jewish magazines; falafel was served by Zionist student groups in U.S.-ian universities beginning in the 1950s and continuing to now.

These de-Arabization and nationalization processes were possible in part because it was often Mizrahim (West Asian and North African Jews) who introduced Israelis to Palestinian food—especially after 1950, when they began to immigrate to Israel in larger numbers. Even if unfamiliar with specific Palestinian dishes, Mizrahim were at least familiar with many of the ingredients, taste profiles, and cooking methods involved in preparing them. They were also more willing to maintain their familiar foodways as settlers than were Zionist Ashkenazim, who often wanted to distance themselves from European and diaspora Jewish culture.

Despite their longstanding segregation from Israeli Ashkenazim (and the desire of Ashkenazim to create a "new" European Judaism separate from the indolence and ignorance of "Oriental" Jews, including their wayward foodways), Mizrahim were still preferable to Palestinian Arabs as a point of origin for Israel's "national snack." When associated with Mizrahi vendors, falafel could be considered both Oriental and Jewish (note that Sephardim and Mizrahim are unilaterally not considered to be "Arabs" in this writing).

Thus food writing of the 1950s and 60s (and some food writing today) asserts, contrary to settlers' writing of the 1920s and 30s, that falafel had been introduced to Israel by Jewish immigrants from Syria, Yemen, or Morocco, who had been used to eating it in their native countries—this, despite the fact that Yemen and Morocco did not at this time have falafel dishes. Even texts critical of Zionism echoed this narrative. In fact, however, Yemeni vendors had learned to make falafel in Egypt on their way to Palestine and Israel, and probably found falafel already being sold and eaten there when they arrived.Meneley, Anne2007 Like an Extra Virgin. American Anthropologist 109(4):678–687

Meanwhile, "pita" (Palestinian Arabic: خبز الكماج; khubbiz al-kmaj) was undergoing in some quarters a similar process of Israelization; it remained "Arab" in others. In 1956, a Boston-born settler in Haifa wrote for The Jewish Post:

The baking of the pittah loaves is still an Arab monopoly [in Israel], and the food is not available at groceries or bakeries which serve Jewish clientele exclusively. For our Oriental meal to be a success we must have pittah, so the more advance shopping must be done.

This "Arab monopoly" in fact did not extent to an Arab monopoly in discourse: it was a mere four years later that the National Jewish Post and Opinion described "Peeta" as an "Israeli thin bread." Two years after that, the U.S.-published My Jewish Kitchen: The Momales Ta'am Cookbook (co-authored by Zionist writer Shushannah Spector) defined "pitta" as an "Israeli roll."

Despite all this scrubbing work, settlers' attitudes towards falafel in the late 1950s were not wholly positive, and references to the dish as having been "appropriated from the [Palestinian] Arabs" did not disappear. A 1958 article, written by a Boston-born man who had settled in Israel in 1948 and published in U.S.-ian Zionist magazine Midstream, repeats the usual associations of falafel with the "younger set" of visitors from kibbutzim to "urban" locales; it also denigrates it as a “formidably indigestible Arab delicacy concocted from highly spiced legumes rolled into little balls, fried in grease, and then inserted into an underbaked piece of dough, known as a pita.”

Thus settlers were ambivalent about khubbiz as well. If their food writing sometimes refers to pita as "doughy" or "underbaked," it is perhaps because they were purchasing it from stores rather than baking it at home—bakeries sometimes underbake their khubbiz so that it retains more water, since it is sold by weight.

Israel and elsewhere, late 1960s–2010s: Falafel with even fewer Arabs

The sanitization of falafel would be more complete in the 60s and 70s, as falafel was gradually moved out of separate "Oriental dishes" categories and into the main sections of Israeli cookbooks. A widespread return to כַּשְׁרוּת‎ (kashrut; dietary laws) meant that falafel, a פַּרְוֶה (parve) dish—one that contained no meat or dairy—was a convenient addition on occasions when food intersected with nationalist institutions, such as at state dinners and in the mess halls of Israeli military forces.

This, however, still did not prohibit Israelis from displaying ambivalence towards the food. Falafel was more likely to be glorified as a symbol of Jewish Israel in foreign magazines and tourist guides, including in the U.S.A. and Italy, than it was to be praised in Israeli Zionist publications.

Where falafel did maintain an association with Palestinians, it was to assert that their versions of it had been inferior. In 1969, Israeli writer Ruth Bondy opines:

Experience says that if we are to form an affection for a people we should find something admirable about its customs and folklore, its food or girls, its poetry and music. True, we have taken the first steps in this direction [with Palestinians]: we like kebab, hummous, tehina and falafel. The trouble is that these have already become Jewish dishes and are prepared more tastily by every Rumanian restaurateur than by the natives of Nablus.

Opinions about falafel in this case seem to serve as a mirror for political opinions about Palestinians: the same writer had asserted, on the previous page, that the "ideal situation, of course, would be to keep all the territories we are holding today—but without so many Arabs. A few Arabs would even be desirable, for reasons of local color, raising pigs for non-Moslems and serving bread on the Passover, but not in their masses" (trans. Israel L. Taslitt).

Later narratives tended to retrench the Israelization of falafel, often acknowledging that falafel had existed in Palestine prior to Zionist incursion, but holding that Jewish settlers had made significant changes to its preparation that were ultimately responsible for making it into a worldwide favorite. Joan Nathan's 2001 Foods of Israel Today, for example, claimed that, while fava and chickpea falafel had both preëxisted the British Mandate period, Mizrahi settlers caused chickpeas to be the only pulse used in falafel.

Gil Marks, who had echoed this narrative in his 2010 Encyclopedia of Jewish Food, later attributed the success of Palestinian foods to settlers' inventiveness: "Jews didn’t invent falafel. They didn’t invent hummus. They didn’t invent pita. But what they did invent was the sandwich. Putting it all together. And somehow that took off and now I have three hummus restaurants near my house on the Upper West Side.”

Israel and elsewhere, 2000s – 2020s: Re-Arabization; or, "Local color"

Ronald Ranta has identified a trend of "re-Arabizing" Palestinian food in Israeli discourse of the late 2000s and later: cooks, authors, and brands acknowledge a food's origin or identity as "Arab," or occasionally even "Palestinian," and consumers assert that Palestinian and Israeli-Palestinian (i.e., Israeli citizens of Palestinian ancestry) preparations of foods are superior to, or more "authentic" than, Jewish-Israeli ones. Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian brands and restaurants market various foods, including falafel, as "אסלי" ("asli"), from the Arabic "أَصْلِيّ" ("ʔaṣliyy"; "original"), or "בלדי" ("baladi"), from the Arabic "بَلَدِيّ" ("baladiyy"; "native" or "my land").

This dedication to multiculturalism may seem like progress, but Ranta cautions that it can also be analyzed as a new strategy in a consistent pattern of marginalization of the indigenous population: "the Arab-Palestinian other is re-colonized and re-imagined only as a resource for tasty food [...] which has been de-politicized[;] whatever is useful and tasty is consumed, adapted and appropriated, while the rest of its culture is marginalized and discarded." This is the "serving bread" and "local color" described by Bondy: "Arabs" are thought of in terms of their usefulness to settlers, and not as equal political participants in the nation. For Ranta, the "re-Arabizing" of Palestinian food thus marks a new era in Israel's "confiden[ce]" in its dominance over the indigenous population.

So this repatriation of Palestinian food is limited insofar as it does not extend to an acknowledgement of Palestinians' political aspirations, or a rejection of the Zionist state. Food, like other indicators and aspects of culture, is a "safe" avenue for engagement with colonized populations even when politics is not.

The acknowledgement of Palestinian identity as an attempt to neutralize political dissent, or perhaps to resolve the contradictions inherent in liberal Zionist identity, can also be seen in scholarship about Israeli food culture. This scholarship tends to focus on narratives about food in the cultural domain, ignoring the material impacts of the settler-colonialist state's control over the production and distribution of food (something that Ranta does as well). Food is said to "cross[] borders" and "transcend[] cultural barriers" without examination of who put the borders there (or where, or why, or how, or when). Disinterest in material realities is cultivated so that anodyne narratives about food as “a bridge” between divides can be pursued.

Raviv, for example, acknowledges that falafel's de-Palestinianization was inspired by anti-Arab sentiment, and that claiming falafel in support of "Jewish nationalism" was a result of "a connection between the people and a common land and history [needing] to be created artificially"; however, after referring euphemistically to the "accelerated" circumstances of Israel's creation, she supports a shared identity for falafel in which it can also be recognized as "Israeli." She concludes that this should not pose a problem for Palestinians, since "falafel was never produced through the labor of a colonized population, nor was Palestinian land appropriated for the purpose of growing chickpeas for its preparation. Thus, falafel is not a tool of oppression."

Palestine and Israel, 1960s – 2020s: Material realities

Yet chickpeas have been grown in Israel for decades, all of them necessarily on appropriated Palestinian land. Experimentation with planting in the arid conditions of the south continues, with the result that today, chickpea is the major pulse crop in the country. An estimated 17,670,000 kilograms of chickpeas were produced in Israel in 2021; at that time, this figure had increased by an average of 3.5% each year since 1966. 73,110 kilograms of that 2021 crop was exported (this even after several years of consecutive decline in chickpea exports following a peak in 2018), representing $945,000 in exports of dried chickpeas alone.

The majority of these chickpeas ($872,000) were exported to the West Bank and Gaza; Palestinians' inability to control their own imports (all of which must pass through Israeli customs, and which are heavily taxed or else completely denied entry), and Israeli settler violence and government expropriation of land, water, and electricity resources (which make agriculture difficult), mean that Palestine functions as a captive market for Israeli exports. Israeli goods are the only ones that enter Palestinian markets freely.

By contrast, Palestinian exports, as well as imports, are subject to taxation by Israel, and only a small minority of imports to Israel come from Palestine ($1.13 million out of $22.4 million of dried chickpeas in 2021).

The 1967 occupation of the West Bank has besides had a demonstrable impact on Palestinians' ability to grow chickpeas for domestic consumption or export in the first place, as data on the changing uses of agricultural land in the area from 1966–2001 allow us to see. Chickpeas, along with wheat, barley, fenugreek, and dura, made up a major part of farmers' crops from 1840 to 1914; but by 2001, the combined area devoted to these field crops was only a third of its 1966 value. The total area given over to chickpeas, lentils and vetch, in particular, shrank from 14,380 hectares in 1966 to 3,950 hectares in 1983.

Part of this decrease in production was due to a shortage of agricultural labor, as Palestinians, newly deprived of land or of the necessary water, capital, and resources to work it—and in defiance of Raviv's assertion that "falafel was never produced through the labor of a colonized population"—sought jobs as day laborers on Israeli fields.

The dearth of water was perhaps especially limiting. Palestinians may not build anything without a permit, which the Israeli military may deny for any, or for no, reason: no Palestinian's request for a permit to dig a well has been approved in the West Bank since 1967. Israel drains aquifiers for its own use and forbids Palestinians to gather rainwater, which the Israeli military claims to own. This lack of water led to land which had previously been used to grow other crops being transitioned into olive tree fields, which do not require as much water or labor to tend.

In Gaza as well, occupation systematically denies Palestinians of food itself, not just narratives about food. The majority of the population in Gaza is food-insecure, as Israel allows only precisely determined (and scant) amounts of food to cross its borders. Gazans rely largely on canned goods, such as chickpeas (often purchased at subsidized rates through food aid programs run by international NGOs), because they do not require scarce water or fuel to prepare—but canned chickpeas cannot be used to prepare a typical deep-fried falafel recipe (the discs would fall apart while frying). There is, besides, a continual shortage of oil (of which only a pre-determined amount of calories are allowed to enter the Strip). Any narrative about Israeli food culture that does not take these and other realities of settler-colonialism into account is less than half complete.

Of course, falafel is far from the only food impacted by this long campaign of starvation, and the strategy is only intensifying: as of December 2023, children are reported to have died by starvation in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Support Palestinian resistance by calling Elbit System’s (Israel’s primary weapons manufacturer) landlord; donating to Palestine Action’s bail fund; buying an e-sim for distribution in Gaza; or donating to help a family leave Gaza.

Equipment:

A meat grinder, or a food processor, or a high-speed or immersion blender, or a mortar and pestle and an enormous store of patience

A pot, for frying

A kitchen thermometer (optional)

Ingredients:

Makes 12 large falafel balls; serves 4 (if eaten on their own).

For the فلافل (falafel):

500g dried chickpeas (1010g once soaked)

1 large onion

4 cloves garlic

1 Tbsp cumin seeds

1 Tbsp coriander seeds

2 tsp dill seeds (عين جرادة; optional)

1 medium green chili pepper (such as a jalapeño), or 1/2 large one (such as a ram's horn / فلفل قرن الغزال)

2 stalks green onion (3 if the stalks are thin) (optional)

Large bunch (50g) parsley, stems on; or half parsley and half cilantro

2 Tbsp sea salt

2 tsp baking soda (optional)

For the حَشوة (filling):

2 large yellow onions, diced

1/4 cup coarsely ground sumac

4 tsp shatta (شطة: red chili paste), optional

Salt, to taste

3 Tbsp olive oil

For the طراطور (tarator):

3 cloves garlic

1/2 tsp table salt

1/4 cup white tahina

Juice of half a lemon (2 Tbsp)

2 Tbsp vegan yoghurt (لبن رائب; optional)

About 1/4 cup water

To make cultured vegan yoghurt, follow my labna recipe with 1 cup, instead of 3/4 cup, of water; skip the straining step.

To fry:

Several cups neutral oil

Untoasted hulled sesame seeds (optional)

Instructions:

1. If using whole spices, lightly toast in a dry skillet over medium heat, then grind with a mortar and pestle or spice mill.

2. Grind chickpeas, onion, garlic, chili, and herbs. Modern Palestinian recipes tend to use powered meat grinders; you could also use a food processor, speed blender, or immersion blender. Some recipes set aside some of the chickpeas, aromatics, and herbs and mince them finely, passing the knife over them several times, then mixing them in with the ground mixture to give the final product some texture. Consult your own preferences.

To mimic the stone-ground texture of traditional falafel, I used a mortar and pestle. I found this to produce a tender, creamy, moist texture on the inside, with the expected crunchy exterior. It took me about two hours to grind a half-batch of this recipe this way, so I don't per se recommend it, but know that it is possible if you don't have any powered tools.

3. Mix in salt, spices, and baking soda and stir thoroughly to combine. Allow to chill in the fridge while you prepare the filling and sauce.

If you do not plan to fry all of the batter right away, only add baking soda to the portion that you will fry immediately. Refrigerate the rest of the batter for up to 2 days, or freeze it for up to 2 months. Add and incorporate baking soda immediately before frying. Frozen batter will need to be thawed before shaping and frying.

For the filling:

1. Heat olive oil in a skillet over medium heat. Fry onion and a pinch of salt for several minutes, until translucent. Remove from heat.

2. Add sumac and stir to combine. Add shatta, if desired, and stir.

For the tarator:

1. Grind garlic and salt in a mortar and pestle (if you don't have one, finely mince and then crush the garlic with the flat of your knife).

2. Add garlic to a bowl along with tahina and whisk. You will notice the mixture growing smoother and thicker as the garlic works as an emulsifier.

3. Gradually add lemon juice and continue whisking until smooth. Add yoghurt, if desired, and whisk again.

4. Add water slowly while whisking until desired consistency is achieved. Taste and adjust salt.

To fry:

1. Heat several inches of oil in a small or medium pot to about 350 °F (175 °C). A piece of batter dropped in the oil should float and immediately form bubbles, but should not sizzle violently. (With a small pot on my gas stove, my heat was at medium-low).

2. Use your hands or a large falafel mold to shape the falafel.

To use a falafel mold: Dip your mold into water. If you choose to cover both sides of the falafel with sesame seeds, first sprinkle sesame seeds into the mold; then apply a flat layer of batter. Add a spoonful of filling into the center, and then cover it with a heaping mound of batter. Using a spoon, scrape from the center to the edge of the mold repeatedly, while rotating the mold, to shape the falafel into a disc with a slightly rounded top. Sprinkle the top with sesame seeds.

To use your hands: wet your hands slightly and take up a small handful of batter. Shape it into a slightly flattened sphere in your palm and form an indentation in the center; fill the indentation with filling. Cover it with more batter, then gently squeeze between both hands to shape. Sprinkle with sesame seeds as desired.

3. Use a slotted spoon or kitchen spider to lower falafel balls into the oil as they are formed. Fry, flipping as necessary, until discs are a uniform brown (keep in mind that they will darken another shade once removed from the oil). Remove onto a wire rack or paper towel.

If the pot you are using is inclined to stick, be sure to scrape the bottom and agitate each falafel disc a couple seconds after dropping it in.

4. Repeat until you run out of batter. Occasionally use a slotted spoon or small sieve to remove any excess sesame seeds from the oil so they do not burn and become acrid.

Serve immediately with sauce, sliced vegetables, and pickles, as desired.

#Palestine #Israel #vegetarian recipes #Palestinian #falafel #chickpeas #sumac #onions #garlic #parsley #cilantro #dill seeds #sesame seeds #tahina #yoghurt #long post /

781 notes · View notes