Tomato, Tomate
It's things like this that really make a girl groan.
Is a Hot Pocket not a sandwich, then? What about Croissant Pockets? Because that's a croissant made around the filling. But it's not uncommon to find a legal sandwich made by slicing a croissant in half and putting the filling between the top and bottom. How is that different, exactly? And, for that matter, what about a hamburger bun? That's actually a whole bread that has been sliced in half, and you'll notice at McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy's that if you just want the burger (not the meal), they'll ask you, "Just the sandwich?" And then, of course, there's the "submarine sandwich" (a.k.a. grinder, hero, hoagie, po' boy, torpedo...), which is actually called a freakin' "sandwich," and which uses a single loaf of bread cut almost-but-not-quite in half so that it's still a single piece of bread.
(And don't give me any lip about whether or not there's leavening in the bread-y part, either. One of my college roommates kept kosher during Passover, and ate PB&J on giant matzo crackers. He called them 'sandwiches' without any hesitation [except to complain about their unsatisfactoriness].)
When I make quesadillas I use two tortillas rather than folding one in half. Is that the difference between a 'sandwich' and a 'latino un-sandwich' — the folding? But if so, how do you classify a wrap (or, as they were occasionally called upon general introduction into the fast-food market, a "roll-up" [therewith providing me a bit of pedantic pleasure: when "roll-up" was distinctly losing out to "wrap" in the mid-1990s, I received my copy of the most recent edition of The Joy of Cooking, wherein {among stupidities like calling a tortilla soup by the name of chilaquiles} they offered a few recipes for the "recently invented...roll-up"])? (Because everybody I know classifies them as sandwiches.) Or gyros, or falafel? It appears that pitas present a particularly precise problematic: you can (or could) find pitas stuffed with such classic sandwich fillings chicken/egg/ham/tuna salad, but I've never heard of a chicken/&c.-salad taco.
And what of Taco Hell's Cheesy Gordita Crunch? Because that's actually got two tortillas: an outer soft one and an inner hard one. And in addition to the two separate breads, there's a layer of cheese between them (à la the grilled cheese sandwich); this then is folded (well, the soft one is folded; the hard one is molded) around taco fillings, which raises a further question: are the fillings fillings or toppings (like pizza toppings would be if you took a slice and folded it in half to make a pizza 'taco')? I mean, suppose you emptied – or, better, never inserted – the beef, lettuce, &c., so that you were left with the soft tortilla stuck with cheese to the hard one: would that be a sandwich, or would the U shape disqualify it?
What's interesting about Taco Hell is their "Think Outside the Bun" slogan, positioning themselves as an alternative to the burger, but still within the realm of the sandwich. And what does Taco Hell sell? Burritos, tacos, and quesadillas. (Q.E.D.)
The thing is, 'sandwich' is both a category and a thing, food both consumed in a particular context and assembled in a particular way. Neither Panera nor the mall thought this through when they signed their contract. When the dispute arose, Panera plumped for the "category" definition and the mall for the "thing" definition. Each took the definition best suiting their interests, and they went to court over whose definition was controlling.
It is in this connection that the decision seems questionable to me. The Supreme Court of the United States, decided in Nix v. Hedden (1893; 149 U.S. 304) that a tomato is legally a vegetable when in fact it is botanically a fruit (and not just any kind of fruit but a berry, unlike, say, a straw'berry'). That decision was based on contextual rather than structural definitions of "fruit" and "vegetable," in that fruits are sweet and good for desserts. But in "Sandwich v. Burrito," the structural definition was given precedence.
The defendants cited chefs, culinary historians, and a former agricultural [WTF?!?] official in support of their "thing"-oriented definition of 'sandwich.' The judge also cited noted food experts Noah Webster and the Merriam brothers and their dictionary definition of sandwich (a particularly problematic gambit given that, in Nix v. Hedden, both sides introduced dictionary definitions and the Court dismissed all of them as irrelevant). One rather wishes that an arbiter of justice would be a bit more nuanced than that, that he would have some appreciation for connotation as well as denotation, and therefore have consulted a book of English usage instead of, or at least in addition to, a dictionary. And why Merriam-Webster, instead of Random House, or the Oxford English dictionary? The difference could be important: suppose a tea house wished to open in the mall and serve such dainties as watercress sandwiches? A Panera complaint about that wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Truth does not, as is often said, "lie somewhere in-between" alternatives. It is not an average of opinion, even of expert opinion. Context matters. Unfortunately, a judgeship does not a legal scholar make, even on the Supreme Court; further, a legal scholar does not a food scholar make. By way of analogy, consider the legal interpretation of independent Alabama shrimpers (think pre-Hurricane Carmen Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation, not post-hurricane) as firms. As individuals, collective action on their part to get a better deal from the packers would be perfectly legal unionization. Once they were construed to be firms rather than individuals, such collective action was determined to be a violation of anti-trust legislation (Durrenberger 1992a, 1992b, 1994, 1995, 1997). Judges know law. Law is not the real world, nor is law informed by the real world nearly so much as it should be. It is, like much philosophy, conception with only selective reference to perception. Is a burrito a sandwich? Yes, indeed: it is a latino sandwich. Just go to any market in Latin America, and you'll see. (On the other hand, it does irritate me when I order a martini and the waitron asks, "What kind?" A martini is a drink, a vodka martini is a different drink, and if I wanted a vodka martini that is what I would have ordered.)
The thing is, I think the judge made the right decision. What ever happened to that free market of which business is supposed to be so protective? Oh, sorry: it's only good if it's in their interests, as in access to new markets (selling American rice in Japan). But they'll try to build their own monopolies, as Panera tried to do at the mall (and as these fuckers did on the day I subscribed to Netflix). The only bad monopoly is somebody else's. So people don't have to stay at the mall if they want a non-Panera sandwich? And they didn't have to vote for Al Gore if they didn't want Bush in the White House, either. Sometimes "choice" only exists in rhetoric.
At any rate, here is the definition of 'sandwich': if the basic construction is bread surrounding non-bread filling, if the basic version can be eaten neatly without silverware or the equivalent, and if it takes more than three ordinary bites to eat a whole one, it's a sandwich. Three bites or fewer, it's a dumpling.
References
Durrenberger, E. Paul
Is a Hot Pocket not a sandwich, then? What about Croissant Pockets? Because that's a croissant made around the filling. But it's not uncommon to find a legal sandwich made by slicing a croissant in half and putting the filling between the top and bottom. How is that different, exactly? And, for that matter, what about a hamburger bun? That's actually a whole bread that has been sliced in half, and you'll notice at McDonalds and Burger King and Wendy's that if you just want the burger (not the meal), they'll ask you, "Just the sandwich?" And then, of course, there's the "submarine sandwich" (a.k.a. grinder, hero, hoagie, po' boy, torpedo...), which is actually called a freakin' "sandwich," and which uses a single loaf of bread cut almost-but-not-quite in half so that it's still a single piece of bread.
(And don't give me any lip about whether or not there's leavening in the bread-y part, either. One of my college roommates kept kosher during Passover, and ate PB&J on giant matzo crackers. He called them 'sandwiches' without any hesitation [except to complain about their unsatisfactoriness].)
When I make quesadillas I use two tortillas rather than folding one in half. Is that the difference between a 'sandwich' and a 'latino un-sandwich' — the folding? But if so, how do you classify a wrap (or, as they were occasionally called upon general introduction into the fast-food market, a "roll-up" [therewith providing me a bit of pedantic pleasure: when "roll-up" was distinctly losing out to "wrap" in the mid-1990s, I received my copy of the most recent edition of The Joy of Cooking, wherein {among stupidities like calling a tortilla soup by the name of chilaquiles} they offered a few recipes for the "recently invented...roll-up"])? (Because everybody I know classifies them as sandwiches.) Or gyros, or falafel? It appears that pitas present a particularly precise problematic: you can (or could) find pitas stuffed with such classic sandwich fillings chicken/egg/ham/tuna salad, but I've never heard of a chicken/&c.-salad taco.
And what of Taco Hell's Cheesy Gordita Crunch? Because that's actually got two tortillas: an outer soft one and an inner hard one. And in addition to the two separate breads, there's a layer of cheese between them (à la the grilled cheese sandwich); this then is folded (well, the soft one is folded; the hard one is molded) around taco fillings, which raises a further question: are the fillings fillings or toppings (like pizza toppings would be if you took a slice and folded it in half to make a pizza 'taco')? I mean, suppose you emptied – or, better, never inserted – the beef, lettuce, &c., so that you were left with the soft tortilla stuck with cheese to the hard one: would that be a sandwich, or would the U shape disqualify it?
What's interesting about Taco Hell is their "Think Outside the Bun" slogan, positioning themselves as an alternative to the burger, but still within the realm of the sandwich. And what does Taco Hell sell? Burritos, tacos, and quesadillas. (Q.E.D.)
The thing is, 'sandwich' is both a category and a thing, food both consumed in a particular context and assembled in a particular way. Neither Panera nor the mall thought this through when they signed their contract. When the dispute arose, Panera plumped for the "category" definition and the mall for the "thing" definition. Each took the definition best suiting their interests, and they went to court over whose definition was controlling.
It is in this connection that the decision seems questionable to me. The Supreme Court of the United States, decided in Nix v. Hedden (1893; 149 U.S. 304) that a tomato is legally a vegetable when in fact it is botanically a fruit (and not just any kind of fruit but a berry, unlike, say, a straw'berry'). That decision was based on contextual rather than structural definitions of "fruit" and "vegetable," in that fruits are sweet and good for desserts. But in "Sandwich v. Burrito," the structural definition was given precedence.
The defendants cited chefs, culinary historians, and a former agricultural [WTF?!?] official in support of their "thing"-oriented definition of 'sandwich.' The judge also cited noted food experts Noah Webster and the Merriam brothers and their dictionary definition of sandwich (a particularly problematic gambit given that, in Nix v. Hedden, both sides introduced dictionary definitions and the Court dismissed all of them as irrelevant). One rather wishes that an arbiter of justice would be a bit more nuanced than that, that he would have some appreciation for connotation as well as denotation, and therefore have consulted a book of English usage instead of, or at least in addition to, a dictionary. And why Merriam-Webster, instead of Random House, or the Oxford English dictionary? The difference could be important: suppose a tea house wished to open in the mall and serve such dainties as watercress sandwiches? A Panera complaint about that wouldn't pass the laugh test.
Truth does not, as is often said, "lie somewhere in-between" alternatives. It is not an average of opinion, even of expert opinion. Context matters. Unfortunately, a judgeship does not a legal scholar make, even on the Supreme Court; further, a legal scholar does not a food scholar make. By way of analogy, consider the legal interpretation of independent Alabama shrimpers (think pre-Hurricane Carmen Bubba-Gump Shrimp Corporation, not post-hurricane) as firms. As individuals, collective action on their part to get a better deal from the packers would be perfectly legal unionization. Once they were construed to be firms rather than individuals, such collective action was determined to be a violation of anti-trust legislation (Durrenberger 1992a, 1992b, 1994, 1995, 1997). Judges know law. Law is not the real world, nor is law informed by the real world nearly so much as it should be. It is, like much philosophy, conception with only selective reference to perception. Is a burrito a sandwich? Yes, indeed: it is a latino sandwich. Just go to any market in Latin America, and you'll see. (On the other hand, it does irritate me when I order a martini and the waitron asks, "What kind?" A martini is a drink, a vodka martini is a different drink, and if I wanted a vodka martini that is what I would have ordered.)
The thing is, I think the judge made the right decision. What ever happened to that free market of which business is supposed to be so protective? Oh, sorry: it's only good if it's in their interests, as in access to new markets (selling American rice in Japan). But they'll try to build their own monopolies, as Panera tried to do at the mall (and as these fuckers did on the day I subscribed to Netflix). The only bad monopoly is somebody else's. So people don't have to stay at the mall if they want a non-Panera sandwich? And they didn't have to vote for Al Gore if they didn't want Bush in the White House, either. Sometimes "choice" only exists in rhetoric.
At any rate, here is the definition of 'sandwich': if the basic construction is bread surrounding non-bread filling, if the basic version can be eaten neatly without silverware or the equivalent, and if it takes more than three ordinary bites to eat a whole one, it's a sandwich. Three bites or fewer, it's a dumpling.
References
Durrenberger, E. Paul
1992a. Psychology, Unions, and the Law: Folk Models and the History of Shrimpers Unions in Mississippi. Human Organization 51:151-154.
1992b. It's All Politics: South Alabama's Seafood Industry. University of Illinois Press.
1994. The History of Shrimpers' Unions in Mississippi, 1915-1955. Labor's Heritage 5(3):66-76.
1995. Mississippi Unions Again: Facts, Figures, and Misrepresentations. Human Organization 54(4):474-477.
1997. Fisheries Management Models: Assumptions and Realities Or, Why Shrimpers in Mississippi Are Not Firms. Human Organization 56(2):158-166.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 13:13
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home