Conquer Club

For those not in the know, Umami is a catch-all term for a group of flavours that humans can taste. The generally acknowledged ones you're familiar with-

1) Sweet
2) Sour
3) Bitter
4) Salty

Umami is the fifth. It's the kind of taste you get from mushrooms, or olives, that doesn't quite fit the other four.

Symmetry wrote:For those not in the know, Umami is a catch-all term for a group of flavours that humans can taste. The generally acknowledged ones you're familiar with-

1) Sweet
2) Sour
3) Bitter
4) Salty

Umami is the fifth. It's the kind of taste you get from mushrooms, or olives, that doesn't quite fit the other four.

It's rather interesting. The term umami was coined in 1908 by a Japanese chemist. He suspected, but could not immediately prove, that it was a distinct type of taste sensation. Over time, evidence accumulated, but some scientists continued to fight a rearguard action against its recognition until 2009.

I can't think of any other discovery in modern times that had to fight 101 years for acceptance. I hate to be a cynic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that racism in general, and anti-Japanese sentiment specifically, was at least partially responsible for the long delay. I somehow suspect that if it had been discovered by an Italian or an American or even a Lithuanian, umami would have been in the general textbooks by 1925.

Dukasaur wrote:

Symmetry wrote:For those not in the know, Umami is a catch-all term for a group of flavours that humans can taste. The generally acknowledged ones you're familiar with-

1) Sweet
2) Sour
3) Bitter
4) Salty

Umami is the fifth. It's the kind of taste you get from mushrooms, or olives, that doesn't quite fit the other four.

It's rather interesting. The term umami was coined in 1908 by a Japanese chemist. He suspected, but could not immediately prove, that it was a distinct type of taste sensation. Over time, evidence accumulated, but some scientists continued to fight a rearguard action against its recognition until 2009.

I can't think of any other discovery in modern times that had to fight 101 years for acceptance. I hate to be a cynic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that racism in general, and anti-Japanese sentiment specifically, was at least partially responsible for the long delay. I somehow suspect that if it had been discovered by an Italian or an American or even a Lithuanian, umami would have been in the general textbooks by 1925.

It's a pretty key part of modern Japanese cooking, so I'm inclined toward to thinking that the rise in popularity of Japanese food in the west is generally responsible. Racism probably played a part, but I think that acceptance of the kind of philosophies behind Japanese cuisine on the American west coast brought the idea across. Immigrants and servicemen crossing the Pacific.

That's just my theory though.

So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

They were totally different wars. Germany and Japan were culturally very different countries before the war too. Even hard core nazis never considered their leader a god.

2dimes wrote:They were totally different wars. Germany and Japan were culturally very different countries before the war too. Even hard core nazis never considered their leader a god.

Not totally different, but not totally the same either.

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

As a Brit, I'm gonna have to disagree with your take on the War in Europe being land based. The Blitz comes to mind, no? As does the horror of Dresden.

They both had air wars and arguably Duetcheland would cream Nippon in an air war based on equipment. Hard to say how they would manage those guys stupid enough to fly into their twin towers, boats and what have you.

2dimes wrote:They both had air wars and arguably Duetcheland would cream Nippon in an air war based on equipment. Hard to say how they would manage those guys stupid enough to fly into their twin towers, boats and what have you.

As covering up sttupidity goes, I give you a 2 out of 10. You tried too hard to make it seem like you were joking.

Maybe people don't accept umami as a taste because it's hard to distinguish like the other four basic tastes. I love the taste of salted tomatoes though whether it's umami or not!

Add truffle and MSG together with a hint of fermented white miso paste. Unami bomb! Banzoi!

Symmetry wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

As a Brit, I'm gonna have to disagree with your take on the War in Europe being land based. The Blitz comes to mind, no? As does the horror of Dresden.

To be sure, they were intense and bloody (as was most of WWII). But the Eastern Front and War in the Pacific lasted years with a viciousness from both sides rarely seen. The Blitz lasted less then a year and Dresden was a few days. Not to take away the loss of life during those campaigns, but in terms of magnitude at the time, just a couple of campaigns within the confines of the Western Front of Europe.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

As a Brit, I'm gonna have to disagree with your take on the War in Europe being land based. The Blitz comes to mind, no? As does the horror of Dresden.

To be sure, they were intense and bloody (as was most of WWII). But the Eastern Front and War in the Pacific lasted years with a viciousness from both sides rarely seen. The Blitz lasted less then a year and Dresden was a few days. Not to take away the loss of life during those campaigns, but in terms of magnitude at the time, just a couple of campaigns within the confines of the Western Front of Europe.

The atom bomb ended the war in the Pacific pretty quickly. The length of time a particular campaign or tactic involved is important, but not necessarily a measure of its importance. I see your point, but I think you're wrong to dismiss the importance of aerial and even naval power in the war in Europe.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

I'm gonna disagree. Russia fought on both fronts, also, and was making great progress towards the defeat of Japan

hotfire wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

I'm gonna disagree. Russia fought on both fronts, also, and was making great progress towards the defeat of Japan

I'd certainly be interested to hear more about Russia vs Japan. My general impression was that Russian forces were tied up in the Western front after conceding some early defeats to the Empire.

Symmetry wrote:

hotfire wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

I'm gonna disagree. Russia fought on both fronts, also, and was making great progress towards the defeat of Japan

I'd certainly be interested to hear more about Russia vs Japan. My general impression was that Russian forces were tied up in the Western front after conceding some early defeats to the Empire.

You are not wrong. They were fighting before WWII and probably during it, but a five year truce between them kept the peace for that length of time. That expired and Japan only had about ten days left before Russia would defeat it (see http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/). Unfortunately, I don't know too many details to share about the actual battles.

I do remember hearing in a WWII documentary that the US only dropped the bombs to ensure Russia didn't take Japan.

hotfire wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

hotfire wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

2dimes wrote:So ww I I was a huge success all around. We got to bomb the shit out of them plus our boys brought back sushi and anime!

Japanese people, at least from my experience, don't really think about WW2 in the way that Westerners do.

They generally see the war in Europe as being separate from the war in the Pacific It's kind of a culture shock if you've been entirely educated to think that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan thought and acted in tandem.

Yep. About the only thing the two really had in common, was that the US was involved in both. The war with Germany, sans the u-boat, was mainly land based. The War in the Pacific was far more varied. Land, sea, and air. And, if on a smaller scale, the brutality in the Pacific rivaled that of the Eastern Front.

I'm gonna disagree. Russia fought on both fronts, also, and was making great progress towards the defeat of Japan

I'd certainly be interested to hear more about Russia vs Japan. My general impression was that Russian forces were tied up in the Western front after conceding some early defeats to the Empire.

You are not wrong. They were fighting before WWII and probably during it, but a five year truce between them kept the peace for that length of time. That expired and Japan only had about ten days left before Russia would defeat it (see http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/). Unfortunately, I don't know too many details to share about the actual battles.

I do remember hearing in a WWII documentary that the US only dropped the bombs to ensure Russia didn't take Japan.

It's an interesting idea, but I doubt it. The USSR had enough trouble occupying Eastern Europe. Taking on Japan and the territorial ambition that meant would never have been sustainable from Moscow.

That said, fear of communism, though not necessarily Russia, seems like a more plausible factor.