I completely agree with your critique of the superficiality of cultural "appreciation" in this context. I find that this point connects to Mannur's discussion of the "stench of otherness" in her chapter 4, "Intimate Eating" (Mannur, 104). She explains how the white upper-middle class is inclined to be repulsed by the mexican-korean fusion food truck, citing their sanitary concerns as the reason while, in reality, their repulsion is rooted in an aversion and stigma surrounding working class people of colour. Owners of restaurants and food trucks serving "ethnic" foods have to take extra precaution to accommodate white fear and stigma, perhaps compromising the way they would have liked to serve their food. Food is such an intimate vehicle through which to share and connect with one's culture, and so many immigrant people of colour experience a feeling of shame and othering when it comes to sharing their food in a Western context, tainting their relationship to their culture on some level.

I meant overlooking not overcoming

I like the title of your discussion post @anna_katabi , and I agree with you about the fact that the so-called multiculturalism of (some) white Britons, is superficial. Superficial because even though they might eat South Asian food, they still have racist and xenophobic assumptions about them, and they are still seen as second-class citizens. Buettner writes that ‘’ Ethnic minorities and their cultural practices have long been, and to a considerable extent continue to be, widely met by racism, suspicion, and intolerance. For many white Britons, food may well constitute what Uma Narayan and others have described as the nonthreatening, “acceptable face of multiculturalism’’ (144). Elsewhere she quotes Jatinder Verma’s reflection that expresses this idea of ‘’superficial ‘’ multiculturalism “I do not think that imaginatively we have become multicultural. I think that in the diet we have, absolutely, but I don’t think that has translated from our stomachs to our brains yet” (Buettner, 170).

Also, I would add to what you said that the article is also about a ''superficial tolerance'' towards South Asians linked to ‘’boutique multiculturalism’’ as you mentioned. This ‘’superficial tolerance’’ can be described as the fact that (some) white Britons are interested in eating South Asian food, but they don’t want interactions with South Asians, they don’t want to share space with them except if it’s to consume the ‘’oriental goods’’ they have to offer or to be served by an ‘’oriental looking’’ individual. Throughout the text, there are many examples of this ‘’partial’’ tolerance. For example, Elizabeth Buettner writes that “While curry may have been incorporated . . . into British cuisine, ‘the desire to assimilate and possess what is external to the self’ did not extend to actual people of Indian origin’’ (144). Elsewhere she mentions when the author quotes Jatinder Verma's reflection, “I do not think that imaginatively we have become multicultural. I think that in diet we have, absolutely, but I don’t think that has translated from our stomachs to our brains yet” (Buettner, 170).

Buettner asks an interesting question when she writes ‘’ If “Indian” food now counts as “British,” has a Britishness thus conceived replaced one that long revolved around whiteness with one that makes space for ethnic minority peoples and cultures? (Buettner, 146) I think that with what we have said, my answer to that question would be that I don’t believe white Britons are ready to redefine Britishness to be more inclusive of ethnic minorities, because the so-called multiculturalism they might claim, is only one of surface, superficial. I think this is also what Jatinder Verma is trying to express.