S14.E13: Trial By Fire

[xtwheeler]

On 2/25/2017 at 2:16 AM, CrinkleCutCat said:

I'm hoping Shirley wins. I love her stories re her food and her cultural identity being expressed through her food. Brooke is too smug for me.

Why is Padma (and anyone else non-black I presume?), being offended by wearing cornrows? I'm not asking this provocatively, I'm interested to know. I'm an Australian so I may be blissfully ignorant here....

I'm my opinion we are a global community that for centuries has had people of different races migrate around the world with foods/fashions/languages/traditions/trends merging, blending, and influencing. 

On 2/25/2017 at 8:31 AM, Blonde Gator said:

It's ("offensiveness of cornrows") now called "cultural appropriation" here in the US and is some sort of virtue signalling for so-called white privilege, whereby everything is someone else's fault because people's feelings get hurt or they become offended at words, clothing, hairstyle, food, etc..   Or something like that.  For example, having a taco party can now be considered cultural appropriation.

Crinklecutcat, if you'd like an actually respectful response to your inquiry about cornrows rather than what you got above, I'm happy to respond, but I'll put it in the Small Talk thread, since it is off topic. It has absolutely nothing to do with blaming anyone for anything. Might take me until tomorrow to get there, but you're entitled to an actual description of the issue and its complexities.

[WearyTraveler]

15 hours ago, Snarklepuss said:

YMMV, but I doubt there would be that much support for Sheldon if he were not seen as a sweetheart.  If it worked both ways John Tesar would have had more support. On this show I pretty much assume that any one of the final 4 or so deserves to win based on talent, it just comes down to who messes up the most in the judges' eyes in the final challenges as to who goes home. 

TV audiences baffle me.  Watch a show with a good guy in it who always strives to do the right thing and you'll read an overwhelming amount of posts calling the character goodie-two-shoes, unrealistic, boring, one-dimensional, Saint so and so.  Watch a reality competition like Top Chef and see how people react to real humans with flaws who may not always be having a great day, and read about them being smug, conceited, selfish... and so on; meanwhile the guy who is perceived (or portrayed, or maybe he really is), humble and a good guy gets all the admiration.

It's quite interesting to ponder what is behind all of that.

The one thing no one here can say is so and so's food is horrible/delicious because none of us have actually eaten any of the dishes presented on the show.  We could say it looks a certain way, or it sounds like something we would want to eat, but unless we try it, there's no way to say that.  And yet, people appear to be transferring their perception of the contestants to their ability as chefs.

Edited February 27, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[snarktini]

6 minutes ago, WearyTraveler said:

The one thing no one here can say is so and so's food is horrible/delicious because none of us have actually eaten any of the dishes presented on the show.  We could say it looks a certain way, or it sounds like something we would want to eat, but unless we try it, there's no way to say that.  And yet, people appear to be transferring their perception of the contestants to their ability as chefs.

This is one of my pet peeves! You can't possibly be sure the judges are crazy / wrong / biased (or even right for that matter) because you didn't taste the food! It must be nice to be so confident that one's subjective, secondhand perception is the absolute truth.

TV commenters have cured me of the belief that there could be a perfect kind of person who is likable to everyone. There are characters/contestants who are liked by most, but no one is universally loved / hated. 

[RealReality]

On 2/26/2017 at 5:25 PM, Snarklepuss said:

The assumptions I'm seeing are this: 

Sheldon is supposedly a sweetheart.  Therefore his food is the best and he is the most deserving of the win.  Brooke is supposedly smug and full of herself (something I personally don't see and think is a very subjective, superficial judgment at best) so therefore her food isn't all that great and therefore she doesn't deserve to come back from LCK or win.  This is the distinct impression I'm getting overall.

This show isn't a popularity contest despite having a "fan favorite".  And I think it's a good thing it isn't either.  I've seen Padma look upset having to send people home many times.  I think it's unfair to judge these chefs based on how nice they appear to be.  Appearances are deceiving anyway in many cases, IMHO.  This is to me the least slanted or "fixed" cooking competition on TV.  Last week I said the editing is done after the fact so that may be why it's looking like the season has been slanted in favor of Brooke.  Or perhaps it just looks that way to those who don't like her.  I was actually not rooting for her in the beginning and truth be told I'd be just as happy with a Shirley win or any number of chefs who have now gone home.  So it's not like I'm that pro-Brooke at all, I'm just against being unfair towards her.

And I was on TWOP in Kristin's season and I don't remember the objections being anywhere near as numerous or I daresay mean spirited towards Kristin as this season towards Brooke.  Nobody called Kristin stuck up, untalented or whatever.  As a person she seemed to be pretty well liked overall. 

As @MajorWoody pointed out earlier, I think there are marked differences between Kristin and Brooke's situation and LCK.

Kristen was the first person to do LCK, IIRC so it feels like there was much less of an ability to use it as a tool.  She was also booted about mid game right, because she was kicked out during RW.  So she had to beat a lot of people to come back into the competition.  That means she had to come up with dishes that could beat progressively better competitors.

Whereas for the last couple of challenges, AFAIK, Brooke mostly just had to duck and hope that someone was "more bad" than she was.  

When she finally got booted, she had to beat a relatively small number of cheftestants to get back into the game.

I feel Kristen's position was just more difficult.  Also, I think people really sympathized with Kristen because of the whole Josie thing, myself included.  So people naturally rooted for her to get back and win.

Also, I don't think one has to ignore the idea of producer intervention, given the situation.

As for fan favorite, I don't think anyone would say that Brooke is a bad chef, but I think Sheldon and Shirley are better based on the judges feedback.  I can't remember the last time Tom gave the speech he gave to Sheldon, when he won at the James Beard House (right?).  If one were really wearing a tin hat, you could almost posit that Tom made that speech because he knew that TPTB weren't going to allow Sheldon to win TC this time around.  And I think a lot of Sheldon's challenge wins have come as the season has progressed and the field of talent has been pared down to the best of the best, which says something to me.  

So, I don't particularly think anyone is being unfair to Brooke.  

[dleighg]

16 minutes ago, RealReality said:

Kristen was the first person to do LCK

Nope. Beverly Kim was. Season 9. Kristen was the next season. I do think that the conditions of her boot due to Josie contributed to the sympathy for her.

[chiaros]

^^^What dleighg said.

Additionally, with regards to:

4 hours ago, RealReality said:

Kristen was the first person to do LCK, IIRC so it feels like there was much less of an ability to use it as a tool.  She was also booted about mid game right, because she was kicked out during RW.  So she had to beat a lot of people to come back into the competition.  That means she had to come up with dishes that could beat progressively better competitors.

Kristen Kish (Season 10) only had to win 5 challenges in LCK to get back in. Louis Maldonado (Season 11) won EIGHT challenges in a row in LCK to get back in.  For comparison's sake, Beverly Kim (Season 9) won 3 challenges to get back in, not shabby at all. 

[RealReality]

8 hours ago, chiaros said:

^^^What dleighg said.

Additionally, with regards to:

Kristen Kish (Season 10) only had to win 5 challenges in LCK to get back in. Louis Maldonado (Season 11) won EIGHT challenges in a row in LCK to get back in.  For comparison's sake, Beverly Kim (Season 9) won 3 challenges to get back in, not shabby at all. 

While 9 is more, i wouldn't say it was "only 5" that Kristen had to win.  How many did Brooke have to win?  At most 2.  5 is double that number + 1.  

[Spunkygal]

I will scream if Emily is one of the returning sous chefs for the final. PLEASE let Jim and Sylva return to assist! And Sheldon!

[Village]

I must say I loathe Tom. Maybe it's just my personal bias but I can always tell who's going to go home based on his reactions and it always seems like who he wants to win is the the person that becomes Top Chef. Just call this show Tom's Chef and call it a day.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Village

[lololol]

10 minutes ago, Village said:

I must say I loathe Tom. Maybe it's just my personal bias but I can always tell who's going to go home based on his reactions and it always seems like who he wants to win is the the person that becomes Top Chef. Just call this show Tom's Chef and call it a day.

I CAN'T stand Tom. He's a pompous a hole. I agree that who he wants to win ALWAYS does. Since I'm sure he's such a fan of Brooke, I'm sure she'll be TC. She doesn't deserve it. She has a WAY too high opinion of herself. She's NOT creative. I REALLY hope she loses. I also dislike Padma. She's WAY too full of herself.

[RealReality]

20 minutes ago, lololol said:

I CAN'T stand Tom. He's a pompous a hole. I agree that who he wants to win ALWAYS does. Since I'm sure he's such a fan of Brooke, I'm sure she'll be TC. She doesn't deserve it. She has a WAY too high opinion of herself. She's NOT creative. I REALLY hope she loses. I also dislike Padma. She's WAY too full of herself.

I like Tom, but I'll take a bite of @Canada's laptop if Brooke isn't crowned top chef.  Unless she serves a grilled shit sandwich to the judges, Brooke is going to be TC.

[chiaros]

4 hours ago, RealReality said:

While 9 is more, i wouldn't say it was "only 5" that Kristen had to win.  How many did Brooke have to win?  At most 2.  5 is double that number + 1.  

Well, FWIW Jason Stratton (Season 13) also won 5 challenges before losing out to Amar Santana & Carl Dooley.

I don't doubt that Brooke W waltzed through LCK - two challenges, in which it is not clear she won both times. For that matter, Amar Santana also did the same two-challenge thing without necessarily winning both challenges.**  The point was that it wasn't something that Kristen Kish did that was so, so utterly remarkable and mindblowing.

** ETA: He also demonstrated that Tom C needs a lot of salt - when he tossed an extra dose of salt onto his dish (while saying to Carl D - "Watch this") AFTER they had both plated their dishes --- and Tom C then blathered on about how a bit more salt made Amar's dish the winner. (Carl, on tasting Amar's dish, said "Wow, salty" IIRC)

Edited March 1, 2017 by chiaros

[chiaros]

50 minutes ago, Village said:

I must say I loathe Tom. Maybe it's just my personal bias but I can always tell who's going to go home based on his reactions and it always seems like who he wants to win is the the person that becomes Top Chef. Just call this show Tom's Chef and call it a day.

 

35 minutes ago, lololol said:

I CAN'T stand Tom. He's a pompous a hole. I agree that who he wants to win ALWAYS does. Since I'm sure he's such a fan of Brooke, I'm sure she'll be TC. She doesn't deserve it. She has a WAY too high opinion of herself. She's NOT creative. I REALLY hope she loses. I also dislike Padma. She's WAY too full of herself.

I've mentioned before here that this show ought to be called "Who Wants to Cook for Tom Colicchio & Friends". ;-)  And that's what it amounts to, really.

See here, here, for example. :-) 

[RealReality]

2 hours ago, chiaros said:

Well, FWIW Jason Stratton (Season 13) also won 5 challenges before losing out to Amar Santana & Carl Dooley.

I don't doubt that Brooke W waltzed through LCK - two challenges, in which it is not clear she won both times. For that matter, Amar Santana also did the same two-challenge thing without necessarily winning both challenges.**  The point was that it wasn't something that Kristen Kish did that was so, so utterly remarkable and mindblowing.

** ETA: He also demonstrated that Tom C needs a lot of salt - when he tossed an extra dose of salt onto his dish (while saying to Carl D - "Watch this") AFTER they had both plated their dishes --- and Tom C then blathered on about how a bit more salt made Amar's dish the winner. (Carl, on tasting Amar's dish, said "Wow, salty" IIRC)

No, my point wasn't that Kristen did anything particularly mind blowing, but it was just a different and more challenging situation than what Brooke faced.  And I think it was in response to the idea that it's unfair that people applauded Kristen and aren't that excited about a Brooke win (not everyone).  But I don't think the reason is some fundamental lack of fairness, but the idea that the two situations are very different.

I think if you take any one difference between Kristen and Brooke you can point out dissimilarities.  And when you add those up, the contrast becomes even sharper.

[Spaceman Spiff]

23 hours ago, RealReality said:

Whereas for the last couple of challenges, AFAIK, Brooke mostly just had to duck and hope that someone was "more bad" than she was.  

From Episode 7, which is the halfway mark, and the last few challenges, Brooke has had 3 highs (with 2 of those wins) and 4 lows (1 being PYKAG) and Sheldon has had 4 highs (with 1 of those a win) and 3 lows (1 being the PYKAG). Pretty comparable if you ask me. Over all during the season Brooke has had 5 quick fire wins 3 EC wins and Sheldon has had 3 quick fire wins and 1 EC. So Brooke overall may have been low more often than Sheldon, who was consistently high, but when she was low she wasn't the worst, but when she was high, she was the best, unlike Sheldon. It's all in the Wiki.

[RealReality]

1 minute ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

From Episode 7, which is the halfway mark, and the last few challenges, Brooke has had 3 highs (with 2 of those wins) and 4 lows (1 being PYKAG) and Sheldon has had 4 highs (with 1 of those a win) and 3 lows (1 being the PYKAG). Pretty comparable if you ask me. Over all during the season Brooke has had 5 quick fire wins 3 EC wins and Sheldon has had 3 quick fire wins and 1 EC. So Brooke overall may have been low more often than Sheldon, who was consistently high, but when she was low she wasn't the worst, but when she was high, she was the best, unlike Sheldon. It's all in the Wiki.

I think being high consistently would be the more important measure to me.

Who wins can be a luck of the draw, especially where the top three competitors are a hair away from each other.

However, I'm no top chef historian, and I'm not the sort that would do any in depth research into a reality show.  But, even with your facts, the idea that someone is consistently doing better than someone else means more to me.  

[Spaceman Spiff]

4 minutes ago, RealReality said:

However, I'm no top chef historian, and I'm not the sort that would do any in depth research into a reality show.  But, even with your facts, the idea that someone is consistently doing better than someone else means more to me.  

I get that opinion, and respect it, as well as agree with it. There have been seasons where mediocre chefs have played the middle of the road all season and made it to top 3 or 4 or even made it to the finale. I don't consider Brooke mediocre, she was killing it in her season and when she was good this season has won a lot. I was happy with final 3 as I think they are exceptional. There have also been times when really good chefs just go home for that 1 mistake on that 1 EC that sends them home. Unfortunately that is how the game is played. It's the dish in front of them, not the entire season they judge on.

[RealReality]

8 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I get that opinion, and respect it, as well as agree with it. There have been seasons where mediocre chefs have played the middle of the road all season and made it to top 3 or 4 or even made it to the finale. I don't consider Brooke mediocre, she was killing it in her season and when she was good this season has won a lot. I was happy with final 3 as I think they are exceptional. There have also been times when really good chefs just go home for that 1 mistake on that 1 EC that sends them home. Unfortunately that is how the game is played. It's the dish in front of them, not the entire season they judge on.

I think MVs on this point.  I don't think Brooke is a bad chef, I think she is likely a very good chef.   I just don't particularly think she is on the same level as Sheldon or Shirley.  

Even when she has won, I don't know that I was always left with that "hot damn, I want to try that!" feeling.  It was a little more "meh."  Whereas when Shirley or Sheldon would win, like I wanted to try that right this instant!

I wanted tea infused rice in my belly the second Sheldon started to talk about it, when Shirley made something and you could just tell there were these wonderfully balanced layers of flavor I wanted it, right now, and my sad dinner of skinless chicken seemed like a greek tragedy.  I just never got that feeling with Brooke's food, even when the judges were talking about it.

But, like I said, MV for people, and while we disagree I appreciate that we can do so with respect.  Civil disagreement is becoming a lost art :)

Edited March 1, 2017 by RealReality

[Snarklepuss]

On 2/28/2017 at 5:24 AM, RealReality said:

As @MajorWoody pointed out earlier, I think there are marked differences between Kristin and Brooke's situation and LCK.

Kristen was the first person to do LCK, IIRC so it feels like there was much less of an ability to use it as a tool.  She was also booted about mid game right, because she was kicked out during RW.  So she had to beat a lot of people to come back into the competition.  That means she had to come up with dishes that could beat progressively better competitors.

Whereas for the last couple of challenges, AFAIK, Brooke mostly just had to duck and hope that someone was "more bad" than she was.  

When she finally got booted, she had to beat a relatively small number of cheftestants to get back into the game.

I feel Kristen's position was just more difficult.  Also, I think people really sympathized with Kristen because of the whole Josie thing, myself included.  So people naturally rooted for her to get back and win.

Also, I don't think one has to ignore the idea of producer intervention, given the situation.

As for fan favorite, I don't think anyone would say that Brooke is a bad chef, but I think Sheldon and Shirley are better based on the judges feedback.  I can't remember the last time Tom gave the speech he gave to Sheldon, when he won at the James Beard House (right?).  If one were really wearing a tin hat, you could almost posit that Tom made that speech because he knew that TPTB weren't going to allow Sheldon to win TC this time around.  And I think a lot of Sheldon's challenge wins have come as the season has progressed and the field of talent has been pared down to the best of the best, which says something to me.  

So, I don't particularly think anyone is being unfair to Brooke.  

I don't see it that way, in fact I think lasting longer in the regular competition is a greater challenge because you've lasted longer with arguably better chefs and were compared to more people in order to stay there.  In LCK you're only beating one chef each time who has already been eliminated.  The chances are higher of being the one to stay versus go, plus the chefs are eliminated ones, and arguably primarily the less talented ones.  Of course, that doesn't factor in excellent chefs that mess up once and are eliminated because of one fatal error.  But it was easier for Brooke to win LCK if her elimination was due to messing up once and not because she was less talented.  Which I personally think was the case.  I actually think the odds are higher for someone eliminated towards the end of the competition to come back from LCK because they lasted longer under harder circumstances and are arguably a better chef than anyone who has survived LCK.  But that's just the way I see it.

I also get the feeling that Brooke's food is seen as more boring (ergo not as good) compared to Sheldon or Shirley's just by virtue of being mainly European in its style.  I have seen many people on other boards act as if Italian or even French and "New American" cuisine are overdone and boring now and that Asian flavors are "more complex" and interesting, plus there's the thing about the chefs being more strongly tied to their cultural roots being more attractive somehow.  I see this as a sort of bias that sees "more exotic" foods as being superior just because they are not so mainstream here in the US.  I also have felt a certain bias towards American Southern cuisine for similar reasons.  Supposedly the back story is more interesting because of being tied to a specific cultural legacy.  Of course this would not also be applied to an Italian American chef with a cultural legacy because that food is supposedly "overdone" or whatever and Southern food is supposedly trendier.  Or whatever.  Again, just my impressions, feel free to disagree.

[Blonde Gator]

4 hours ago, Snarklepuss said:

I don't see it that way, in fact I think lasting longer in the regular competition is a greater challenge because you've lasted longer with arguably better chefs and were compared to more people in order to stay there.  In LCK you're only beating one chef each time who has already been eliminated.  The chances are higher of being the one to stay versus go, plus the chefs are eliminated ones, and arguably primarily the less talented ones.  Of course, that doesn't factor in excellent chefs that mess up once and are eliminated because of one fatal error.  But it was easier for Brooke to win LCK if her elimination was due to messing up once and not because she was less talented.  Which I personally think was the case.  I actually think the odds are higher for someone eliminated towards the end of the competition to come back from LCK because they lasted longer under harder circumstances and are arguably a better chef than anyone who has survived LCK.  But that's just the way I see it.

I agree with you on LCK for all of the reasons you've enumerated, and I'll add another.  Editing.  And editing under Tom Colicchio's critical eye.

I recall Kristen Kish saying that LCK actually really helped her in winning the entire competition, because she was able to use it to practice the quick-fire type challenge(s), with super time constraints, and that forced her to edit all of her dishes extremely critically.  Improving her self-edit in a hurry is where Brooke will have also been helped by her experience in LCK (besides facing her fears...per usual, heh).  Brooke's been criticized numerous times about "muddy" and "too much stuff", in both this season and in her first appearance on TC.

I believe all of the regular judges demand that there be a great reason for every single ingredient on the plate, and each ingredient fit with every other one on the plate.  Think about how many times we hear "there was no reason for this to be on the plate" or "I could have totally done without XXX".   How many chefs have been tossed for over-complicating their dishes, or not being able to sufficiently edit (*cough* Katsuji).  LCK teaches them to resist that urge to just keep adding one more thing as the clock ticks down.

Excited for tonight! 

[WearyTraveler]

On 2/28/2017 at 10:24 AM, RealReality said:

 If one were really wearing a tin hat, you could almost posit that Tom made that speech because he knew that TPTB weren't going to allow Sheldon to win TC this time around. 

I think this is unlikely as Tom made it a requirement of his participation on the show that the judgement would be only about the food.  He said the minute the winner was determined by something other than the quality of the dish he was out.  It is possible he has been seduced by the money that I'd assume he's making as a part of such a popular show, but, whatever his flaws, I feel that every time Tom speaks about food and ingredients, and respecting those ingredients, you can still see how passionate he is about it.  So, I think his original condition to sign up still apply.

Plus, he's a producer, so, he is TPTB, or part of them, anyway.

[biakbiak]

6 hours ago, Blonde Gator said:

And editing under Tom Colicchio's critical eye.

Tom has absolutely nothing to do with how the show is edited.

[cooksdelight]

43 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Tom has absolutely nothing to do with how the show is edited.

How do you know this, with him being the main producer?

[biakbiak]

51 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

How do you know this, with him being the main producer?

He has talked about it several times but he isn't the main producer and it's edited in LA. He is an Executive Producer which doesn't mean he is a main producer who is responsible for the day to day details that actually get it made. The title Executive Producer varies from doing absolutely nothing just extra money,  a vanity credit, to overall vision, to more hands on. Padma also has had an executive producer credit since 2010. Doneed Arquines and Erica Ross are the current "main" producers and even they are most likely not sitting in on editing sessions it just how the process works.

[lololol]

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 3:11 PM, Norma Desmond said:

I LOVE Sheldon and was hoping for a Brooke/Sheldon finale, but alas, it was not meant to be. Now, GO Brooke! I feel like she is the most well rounded and complete chef, and the "the fix is in" situation thrown at her is, IMO, totally unfounded.

 

I like Shirley but Brooke deserves to win (and hopefully she will).

Brooke is Tom Dick-lick-io's favorite. The "fix" is OBVIOUS. Brooke's food is NOTHING special.

[Jamie Satyr]

1 minute ago, Figster said:

In watching Sheldon on two seasons now, I get the feeling that while he's clearly a super nice guy, he's not the brightest bulb on the tree.  Watching two chefs test and then wrap their fish and they he stupidly puts his right on the grill (knowing no oil is available)?  Sorry, I'm not shedding any tears for Sheldon, he made his bed by desecrating those poor fish.  Top chefs tend to be very intelligent, I've noticed.  Either Brooke or Shirley will be deserving winners in my book.

I said the same thing; "he got a heads up" without having to think and he blew it! He's probably better than both girls, but he sabotaged himself by wanting to be different when there was only one way to handle the situation! He should have taken the freakin' hint and it might have been Shirley behind the bar of "WWHL" instead of Sheldon who took "Fan Fave!" ;-)

[Blonde Gator]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Tom has absolutely nothing to do with how the show is edited.

I meant EDITING in the sense of the COOK editing his/her dishes, NOT the editing of the show.   Reading for context is important.  Try re-reading my comment again....it was all about the chefs learning to edit themselves as a means of stepping up their "games".  Perhaps I should have been clearer in my initial statement. 

I know the judges don't ever see film edits until much later and have absolutely nothing to do with it.  Not their jobs.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Blonde Gator
Clarity

[Drumpf1737]

On 2/25/2017 at 2:16 AM, CrinkleCutCat said:

Why is Padma (and anyone else non-black I presume?), being offensive by wearing cornrows?

No one has ever said someone non-black wearing cornrows is offensive. What is offensive is attributing the origins of cornrows to persons and cultures non-black. Cornrows were presumed the invention of Bo Derek, Kylie Jenner and Ronda Roussey before some prominent black people made some noise. The fact that you're confused about what the specific infraction is suggests there's still work to be done in educating people about them.

On 2/25/2017 at 8:27 AM, limecoke said:

I don't remember any comments back when Bo Derek pulled it off.  

You weren't plugged into the right spaces. ;-)

There's something so unapologetically badass about Brooke; I love her, but if Shirley wins that will be just as pleasing. The debate about LCK is interesting since it seems only the really talented chefs make it back from LCK. Also, I'm less concerned about chefs who make it back from LCK than contestants that appear to be "good reality TV".

Does anyone know John's story?

Edited March 3, 2017 by Drumpf1737

[TomTraubertsBlue]

Who was claiming Bo Derek as the originator of cornrows?  Must have missed that dialogue.

[ratgirlagogo]

On 2/24/2017 at 1:25 PM, meep.meep said:

 

 

So sad to see Sheldon go.   But I think he lost on his own, not that the fix is in for Brooke.  That fish looked tragic.

 

The bizarre thing to me about the way he cooked the fish is that wrapping proteins in leaves and then either pit-roasting them or grilling them is very traditional in both Hawaiian and Filipino cooking (as it is in Mexican cooking).  I was astounded that he didn't do it - I had assumed that of all of the three he'd be the MOST familiar with this technique.

Edited March 4, 2017 by ratgirlagogo

[CrinkleCutCat]

On 03/03/2017 at 4:09 PM, Drumpf1737 said:

No one has ever said someone non-black wearing cornrows is offensive. What is offensive is attributing the origins of cornrows to persons and cultures non-black. Cornrows were presumed the invention of Bo Derek, Kylie Jenner and Ronda Roussey before some prominent black people made some noise. The fact that you're confused about what the specific infraction is suggests there's still work to be done in educating people about them.

You weren't plugged into the right spaces. ;-)

There's something so unapologetically badass about Brooke; I love her, but if Shirley wins that will be just as pleasing. The debate about LCK is interesting since it seems only the really talented chefs make it back from LCK. Also, I'm less concerned about chefs who make it back from LCK than contestants that appear to be "good reality TV".

Does anyone know John's story?

The original poster, which prompted my query, wrote that "[cornrows] are a cultural specific style" and that they "were offended by the embarrassing misappropriation", which (to me) is saying that the offence was wearing cornrows whilst being from the (implied) wrong culture.

I was merely trying to educate myself on an issue that, as a non American, is far removed from my culture... which cropped up on a thread about a cooking show!

[sourpickles]

you know, I've had a week that would defy emotional awfulness, but I'll take this on....everyone is entitled to their opinion.  My only thought was that Padma's hair/head looked different.  I wasn't even trying to bring up an cultural/ whatever issues/questions/etc.  Somehow, it has turned into a defense thing as has many other subjects in TC.  I  am fully aware that we only see the editing of chefs , etc. I don't care wjat the editing is, I'll comment  on what I see and that is that.  TV  is TV. 

[RealReality]

On 3/4/2017 at 5:44 PM, CrinkleCutCat said:

The original poster, which prompted my query, wrote that "[cornrows] are a cultural specific style" and that they "were offended by the embarrassing misappropriation", which (to me) is saying that the offence was wearing cornrows whilst being from the (implied) wrong culture.

I was merely trying to educate myself on an issue that, as a non American, is far removed from my culture... which cropped up on a thread about a cooking show!

Cultural misappropriation is a complex issue.  Much of the issue with cornrows is rooted in the fact that black women have worn cornrows for years and years, and they were basically seen as "ugly," or "ghetto" by mainstream society.

Once high profile white women started wearing them they suddenly became "hip" and "cool" and even worse "cutting edge"  Which is a bit of a slap in the face of women who have worn them for years (all while being basically called "ghetto trash" for doing so.)

Or at least that was the issue I had with it.  And I don't even like cornrows.

I'm sure thats not what Padma was going for, but I think thats the root of the issue.  

[CrinkleCutCat]

Ahh.... Thankyou for that explanation RealReality. 

[Drumpf1737]

Quote

The original poster, which prompted my query, wrote that "[cornrows] are a cultural specific style" and that they "were offended by the embarrassing misappropriation", which (to me) is saying that the offence was wearing cornrows whilst being from the (implied) wrong culture.

I was merely trying to educate myself on an issue that, as a non American, is far removed from my culture... which cropped up on a thread about a cooking show!

It's crazy the places where these conversations happen and how but I think it's so valuable. 

The right terminology is "appropriation" and that wasn't what Padma was doing. Merely wearing your hair in cornrows is not appropriation but suggesting it comes from a different culture is. Weird that mistake would happen. 

[jaync]

Quote

 And now I wonder when braiding became such a touristy thing in parts of Mexico.  

Probably when it was realized that humidity can be a mofo to all kinds of hair on all kinds of folks, and that most would rather not spend a chunk of their vacation messing with that shit.