As the preeminent scholar on wokeness, it's my job to weigh in on the topic whenever there's an interesting new angle to explore.
Recall the fundamental theme -- that wokeness is a necessary outgrowth of imperialism, suited to that stage of the empire's lifespan when it has reached its plateau for conquering foreign peoples, and now needs to integrate them (especially their elites) into the core of the empire, in order to administer a sprawling multicultural polity.
Ethnic suprematism motivates the core during its expansion stage (why they should conquer other groups), while cultural pluralism attends its "integrating the conquered" stage (why they should encourage all their subjects to get along). See the endless historical examples from this post, including polytheism in the Roman Empire and the millet system in the Ottoman Empire.
This process of multicultural integration does not, however, extend to all foreign groups -- it excludes those who have not been conquered, and is outright hostile to those who control a rival sphere of geopolitical influence. It is imperialist, not universalist. That makes members of these excluded groups natural recruits to the cause of anti-wokeness, as detailed in this post on the ethnic composition of the anti-woke left.
As an aside, I've noticed in the years since that post, libtards became such censors during the 2010s woke jihad, that they won't even tolerate discussion of cultural ethnicity as distinct from genetic race. That post clearly identifies cultural, not genetic, faultlines (e.g., Catholic Slavs, or Southern vs. Yankee whites). Yet these days, libtards rule out cultural discussion with guilt-by-association scarewords like "calipers," "skull measuring," "phrenology," and other biological / racial terms.
They aren't stupid enough to believe that Catholicism is a skull trait measured with calipers. What they really mean is that all discussion of group differences -- no matter which groups, and no matter how they are divided -- is forbidden. They learned from their anti-woke antagonists of the 2000s blogging heyday, that it doesn't matter whether two groups are different for genetic or cultural reasons. The point remains that they're rivals over some critical resource, whether material or cultural.
And since the power-serving function of wokeness is to get all of the empire's subjects to play nice with each other, the ideological jannies realized they have to cast aspersions on all discussion of differences or antagonisms between groups that are subjects of the empire. That means not only African-Americans vs. white Americans, but also sub-groups of white Americans like the WASPs and Ashkenazi Jews who form the ruling elite, vs. the Irish and Italian Ellis Islanders who have been left in cultural limbo (neither forming the ruling elite, nor alloted quota "seats at the table" for their Talented Tenth).
The jannies still allow, and even encourage, the hyping up of antagonisms between any subject group of its own empire, and a group from a rival sphere of influence. You can still shit on Russian Slavs and Armenians, from the Russian sphere of influence. And you can deride Persian-Americans as tacky, gaudy, loud, and materialist -- as long as you refrain from doing so toward Indian-American brahmins, who are just as tacky, gaudy, loud, and materialist (by the metric of severe WASPy puritans).
After all, Iranians have never been subjects of the Anglo-American Empire -- in fact they've controlled their own rival sphere of influence -- so fuck them. Indians, though, have been subjects for centuries, so yay Indians. The one must be stigmatized, while the other must be normalized, to strengthen the Anglo-American Empire.
* * *
Over the past week, there's been an insane over-reaction to an innocuous remark by Swedish poster Tinkzorg on Twitter, which praised Nordic cuisine and lamented that Muslims could never enjoy some of it, such as the dish of root mash and ham hock. You can imagine all the typical libtard reactions -- racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, etc. -- but also, how dare you praise Swedish cuisine, it's so terrible, tasteless, and disgusting, compared to the delicious cuisine of Muslim peoples.
Here we see both sides of wokeness playing the role of imperialist integration, only now in the domain of cuisine. First, the reflexive sanctification of the food culture of conquered or allied groups of the empire, many of whom are Muslim -- e.g. from NATO ally Turkey, or subjects from India and Pakistan. And second, the reflexive dehumanization of those who remain obstinately outside of our sphere of influence, such as the Swedes, who not only refuse to join NATO, but do not use the Euro currency. They're resisting political, military, and economic integration into our empire's European region -- so fuck them, and fuck their whole culture.
How can we tell that the jannies' jihad is over imperialist membership rather than any aesthetic substance? Most importantly, because no group's cuisine is disgusting -- it would never have survived for so long, among such a large population, unless it was pretty good. Naturally those raised on it will like it most, while it may be an acquired taste for outsiders. But even then, there will be certain dishes that no foreigner could resist. The notion that most or all of another group's cuisine is sad, pathetic, revolting, or disgusting, is strictly an outgrowth of antagonism between the two groups in some more fundamental domain (like military or economic).
But we can get even finer-grained resolution on the imperialist nature of the jannies' objections to Swedish cuisine and preference for "Muslim" cuisine. (They're equating "Muslim" cuisine to MENA and South Asian regional cuisines, regardless of whether those regions are Christian, Druze, Jewish, Jain, Sikh, or Hindu.) They can't object to pork aesthetically, because it tastes great. That leaves them with non-aesthetic cultural taboos against pork, which they cannot even raise if they're non-Muslim white libtards. And in fact Swedish cuisine incorporates staple MENA spices like allspice and cumin, so there goes the criticism that Swedish food is bland compared to "Muslim" food.
* * *
Which nations on the global map are afforded protection, and hyped up for their delectable food, by members of the Anglo-American Empire? Oddly, it excludes the Axis of Evil nations. Then again, that's not so odd if we view these culinary jihads as imperialist rather than aesthetic.
There is a mania for the cuisine of Anglo imperial ally Morocco, and to a lesser extent our client state of Egypt, but not Libya, which resisted incorporation into our sphere of influence. It is that last North African country you'd be allowed to praise for any part of its culture. And if you did, you've have to frame it in interventionist terms -- how sad that common people who make such wonderful food are governed by such a horrible dictator.
Indeed, there's more of a presence of Ethiopian cuisine in America, and they're Christian rather than Muslim. But they have not defied joining our sphere of influence, so yay them.
There's a mania for the cuisine of Lebanon (operated here primarily by Christians, not Muslims), and to a lesser extent Israel (also not Muslim), our most reliable allies in the Levant, but not Palestine, and definitely not Syria, which has been part of the Russian sphere of influence in the Levant.
There is no widespread presence of Iraqi, Iranian, or Afghani cuisine in the Anglosphere -- despite their combined populations being gigantic, sending plenty of immigrants to found restaurants, or at least be envoys to grocery store chains to carry their food in the ethnic aisle. And yet I see plenty of imported food from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and even the UAE (all allies), in the Walmart and TJ Maxx ethnic food sections. Doner kebab is widespread in the German region of the Anglo Empire. Not to mention all the Indian restaurants, and the Indian section in every grocery store, including items that are made in India itself.
A Persian market that caters mainly to a local Iranian immigrant population does not count. That is culturally isolated, unlike having multiple restaurants in every mediocre metro area, or a dedicated section in every supermarket, both of which cater to cultural outsiders.
Russian cuisine will never be a trend in the Anglosphere, but neither will the cuisine of the Caucasus, nor the Central Asian former Soviet states, a large portion of whom are Muslim.
Moving beyond the Muslim question, the cuisine of the former Yugoslavian groups will never catch on here either, least of all that of Serbia, which has spearheaded the resistance to Balkan incorporation into the Anglo-American Empire. It's not in a separate universe from (fellow Orthodox) Greek cuisine, and yet Greek food has enjoyed a mania in America since the '90s. But then, Greece has been a NATO member since the early days, and uses the Euro currency. Croatian food will never enjoy the mania that Italian food has, even if they're the same food from adjoining regions of the Adriatic border.
Once Spain joined NATO in the early '80s, it was not long before the Spain craze of the '90s and after (music, food, tourism, everything). Interest in that country's culture was minimal before then, during the Franco era, when it did not join NATO like the other defeated Axis powers of WWII. They had to purify their geopolitical stigma before they could become culturally celebrated.
Everyone in America accepts that French cuisine is great, since they've been our allies since the Revolution (different story for the Brits, though, for whom they have been rivals since the Hundred Years War). In fact, the only time we denigrated the French for their food -- calling them "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", referencing the Simpsons -- was when we perceived them to have the slightest hesitation in joining the War on Terror of the 2000s. The military elite even changed the name of French fries to freedom fries in their cafeteria, showing just how central food is to Us vs. Them distinctions, and how they reflect geopolitical or economic rivalries, not aesthetic substance (we had loved French food and French fries for decades before that brief spat).
What about Latin American cuisine? Food from subject state Mexico has long been a staple in America, but as we have incorporated more of Central America and the Caribbean as sweatshop colonies during the '90s and 2000s, you can now buy pupusas in any random Kroger in the Midwest, despite El Salvador being a small country of fewer than 10 million. Anglo subjects in Jamaica have seen their food become more and more popular as well. Not to mention Southern Cone allies like Brazil and Argentina.
Which Latin American countries will never enjoy widespread acceptance? Nicaragua, owing to the Sandinista resistance, Venezuela (Chavez), and Cuba (communist / Soviet sphere state). It's not like Dominican or Puerto Rican food is huge here, but it gets the benefit of the doubt and has some presence where those people live. But not Cuban, unless it is clearly identified as coming from anti-Communist Cubans -- it's the same food that pro-Castro Cubans eat! Ditto for Panamanian, Honduran, Guatemalan, vs. Nicaraguan. And ditto for Colombian, Ecuadorean, and Peruvian, vs. Venezuelan. Pro-America food good, anti-America food bad.
That leaves East Asia. The elephant in the room is China, whose cuisine was popular back when it was a weak nation dominated militarily by Britain and Japan, then economically by the US, including its transition to a sweatshop colony under Deng-ism in the '80s and '90s. Since the 2010s, and especially going forward, though, I sense Chinese food becoming much more thrown by the wayside among Americans. They're getting too uppity as a polity, military, and economy, rivaling the US, at least in their region. So fuck Chinese food.
What Asian cuisine have Americans turned to instead? Why, our other client states or dependent sweatshop colonies -- South Korea, which we've occupied since the Midcentury, Japan, which we defeated and occupied since then as well, and Southeast Asia, which we failed to conquer militarily but have turned into a sweatshop colony since the Asian Tiger era of the '90s.
Every middling city has multiple Korean restaurants, including fast-food as well as sit-down places, and Korean food in the supermarkets, to the point where even non-foodies know Korean-language terms like kimchi and bulgogi. The Kpop phenomenon, South Korean movies, South Korean fashion, and South Korean cosmetics, show that this is not limited to food, but culture in general. And yet, why no love for North Korean cuisine, or other domain of culture? Because they are defiant against joining our sphere of influence, so their food must be tasteless peasant slop, even if it's the exact same dish from the other side of the DMZ. They can still be ridiculed by the libtards who make our movies, like The Interview.
The perennial popularity of Japanese cuisine proves that the waning taste for Chinese food is not just a fashion cycle of out with the old and in with the new. There has been a cultural fascination with Japan among Western European nations since Admiral Perry opened it up through gunboat diplomacy in the mid-19th century. Widespread adoption of Japanese food -- sushi, ramen, Pocky candy, etc. -- began in the '90s, after Japan was not only no longer a military rival, but an economic one either (the '90s being the beginning of their Lost Decades). Similarly for the mania for anime, Nintendo, manga, hentai, cosplay, harajuku, otaku, karaoke, and everything else Japanese (so revered that the terms are always imported as loanwords rather than translated).
Unlike China, Japan has not recently grown powerful in its own right, so it poses no foreseeable threat to our sphere of influence, and therefore we can continue to enjoy its culture without worry, rather than throw it out as "last decade's fashion".
Thai and Vietnamese food became widespread during the 2000s, after they had been subjugated economically during the '90s Asian Tiger era. Their restaurants are almost as ubiquitous as Korean, likewise in the Asian section of every generic supermarket. Even non-foodies know terms like pad thai, pho, and banh mi. But since we never did defeat and occupy them militarily, unlike Japan and South Korea, broader interest in their culture has been minimal.
Which nation in Southast Asia will never see their food become popular, even among libtard foodies? Burma (now supposed to be called Myanmar), lumped in with the other Axis of Evil states by Bush's Secretary of State Rice. It has resisted incorporation into the post-WWII Anglo-American Empire since the '60s, and rather than serve as a sweatshop colony is usually targeted with economic sanctions by Western economies (though not Asian ones like China). It's a large nation of 50-some million, and their food -- without having tasted it -- is as good as Thai or Vietnamese, not to mention more exotic / obscure, which should make them ripe for the picking among trend-setters. Again, these considerations are not aesthetic but imperialist.
As for sub-Saharan Africa, there's little interest at all in their cuisine within the Anglosphere. There's already competition from the African slave descendants, as conquered peoples needing to be incorporated culturally, whether African-American in the US or Caribbean in the UK. The Scramble for Africa didn't last long before decolonization, and there never was much settlement or extensive occupation anyway. Even today they are not the primary destination for sweatshop owners looking for cheap labor colonies (that would be Latin America and Southeast Asia / Pacific Islands). Thus, sub-Saharan African cuisines are mostly ignored by the Anglosphere.
We can make a simple prediction, though: those nations that do become more of an economic value-adder to Anglo-American profits, or a military alliance, will see their cuisine treated favorably, while those that remain outside or outright resist, will be ridiculed as disgusting. Nigerian cuisine, for example, could eventually become popular in America or Britain, but not that of the Congo, which is equally delectable (again, not having tasted it). Handy rule-of-thumb: countries singled out by the Anglosphere for "human rights abuses" are resisting incorporation into its sphere of influence.
* * *
This nakedly imperialist project is best demonstrated by the Anthony Bourdain TV series about culinary tourism, No Reservations (from the 2000s) and Parts Unknown (from the 2010s). Have a look at the episode lists in those links, and notice who does and does not get included, and how they are treated even if they are included.
Those outside the Empire are at best treated as hapless and goofy places with OK food, like the portrayal of Russia during the 2000s, when Anglo triumphalism over Russia was taken for granted in the wake of the fall of the USSR and the catastrophe of the 1990s. That portrayal all changed after Putin beat back the Anglo-American proxy invasion via the failed Georgian uprising of 2008. The Russian Bear was no longer slumbering in harmless hibernation, and it was suddenly back to relentless anti-Russian propaganda for the creative class in the Anglosphere.
Naturally, his companion during trips to the Russian sphere of influence is not a Russian Slav (boo, hiss), but one of the ethnic minorities who the Anglosphere hopes to break away from the Slavic majority (part-Ashkenazi Jewish, part-Tatar).
The portrayal of Iran and Libya as places with decent people and food, but tragically governed by evil despots, is all too familiar from the imperialist propaganda machine. Especially during the second series, which began in 2013 during the outset of the 2010s wokeness hysteria, this show was clearly intertwined with the State Dept and the CIA to manufacture consent among its libtard audience for official imperial interventionism. Reflecting this tonal shift, it moved from the benign Travel Channel to CNN, at the heart of the Anglo propaganda machine.
Same time as the CIA staged a hostile takeover of the Vice brand for capturing the hipster sub-demo of libtards. Bourdain himself was branded as a bridge between the metrosexuals and the hipsters (proto-dirtbag leftists), within the overall libtard audience.
* * *
Where does this process leave the cuisine of the core nation, then? After the stage of imperial expansion, its subjects are not supposed to gloat about how great their own culture is. It must be respected, as with the Roman cult of the emperor, but not lorded over the rest of their subjects (hence Roman polytheism as well). Americans must respect bacon cheeseburgers, but they can't brag about them being superior to tacos or bulgogi -- that would be supremacist, when pluralism is called for during the "consolidation of past conquests" stage.
They can use self-deprecation, though, to signal their comfort with the high status of their own food, not needing the patronizing reassurance from others that it's actually good.
Now, though, as our empire has begun its long period of disintegration, this kind of wokeness will be less and less required. The whole point of it is to integrate -- when disintegration begins, it no longer serves any purpose.
What shape it takes remains to be seen, but it will track the more fundamental domains of political, military, and economic disintegration. If some groups splits off from us relatively peacefully, we will just lose interest, maybe mutter under our breath about how their food sucked anyway. If they humiliate us in military defeat, like Afghanistan just did -- or Russia and Syria did during the late 2010s -- we will become more overtly reactionary against their culture.
To wrap up with that in mind, a welcome antidote to the toxic cultural imperialism of the Anglosphere libtard creative class is left twitter's resident Manic Pixie Dream Girl, Marina (@shamshi_adad). Part of her "not like other girls" appeal is a non-ironic fondness for the culture of the former Soviet Union, including quirky manufactured products like Soviet-era radios, but also the food culture of Russia itself and its Central Asian Turko-Mongol clients.
It's not a USSR LARP, though, as she's fond of Yugoslavian cuisine, and Turkish cuisine (or perhaps that's a sign of Turkey's gradual slide away from the Anglosphere and into the Russosphere...).
Surprisingly, she's an Anglophile and the main defender of English cuisine, despite unrelenting attacks from her fellow leftists. IIRC she's part-Italian and part-Irish by ancestry, and a native New Yorker. So, not defending Anglo cuisine out of in-group-ism, but as a member of a peripheral ethnic group that still appreciates what came from the imperial core. But without, at the same time, denigrating the rivals of the core, such as Russia, Yugoslavia, etc.
Not just another flunkie from the dirtbag left subdivision of the CIA's outreach programs, in other words. Just an open-minded free spirit eager to make friends from all walks of life, during the twists and turns of life's many fun, and funny, adventures. One of the precious few refreshing personas left on that hellsite, after most of the others abandoned ship in the wake of Bernie's implosion (including her spiritual big sister, Alison Balsam, pbuh).