Two Sides of a Coin

I've never been to Portland. It seems nice. It's on my place of lists to go, but I've never been. I can't say how good the beer scene is or what any scene is like out there. Of course, I've had plenty of beers from Oregon and California, so that's nothing new. What I do know is that Portland has a lot of breweries. More than any other city in the world, so it claims. I'm not sure if having breweries within a defined boundary makes a place great, but it's a start.

What I do know is that I hate stereotypes. Just because Portland has a lot of breweries doesn't mean they all are excellent. After reading a smug article in Northwestern's student newspaper, I've come to the conclusion that Chicago's beer image suffers from years of stereotypes, misconceptions and a basic lack of historical understanding. Another article I read on the hideous Chicago Now/Redeye blog does nothing more than to reinforce these stereotypes by uniformed drinkers.

First, the Northwestern article. The article focuses on a home brewing class. It offers no depth or even broader context about the home brewing movement in the U.S., the Midwest or Chicago. What it does is offer up broad stereotypes about Chicago and Portland: basically Portland is a Mecca of craft beer while Chicagoans are backward hicks with no real understanding of taste. It's a slight dig that people of Portland love to get in whenever they can. I'm not sure if it is an inferiority complex or just plain smugness, but it is prevalent in nearly everyone I've met from Portland.

The basic idea is that the author is only offered Budweiser and Miller Lite by his friends. Considering this is a student newspaper, I'm guessing this has more to do with price than taste, but we'll leave that alone. The author fails to note the difficulty in distribution of craft beer in Chicago and the labyrinth laws needed to navigate the craft beer industry. Also, nobody in Chicago drinks Budweiser. Miller, yes. So, I'm sure these are stereotypes that the author is trying to push to show how much more enlightened he is than his Midwestern counterparts. Without context, he attempts to paint a city of nearly 3 million by his few friends.

The second article reinforces stereotypes while trying to debunk them. It talks about the Wrigleyville neighborhood and how everyone there wants to drink PBR or Old Style. This has more to do about the historical associations of the Cubs, Harry Carry and that type of beer than any styles. I'd argue that most people flocking into that neighborhood are more of a parody of a Chicagoan than a true native: suburbanities, transplants, etc. That's fine by my book, but they indulge in these stereotypes. The author further extends these by quoting someone who says it is better to drink an Old Style on a hot day than a "heavy" microbrew. Of course, the author doesn't mention that it is the style not where the beer is made that produces that "quenching" trait that people desire: pilsners, IPAs, etc. The whole article is conflated with this idea of beer gardens, so the whole point is often missed.

What I hate most about these articles is the lack of depth or understanding about a subject such as craft beer in the city of Chicago. I'm not qualified to write about cars, boats, food or nearly anything, but if I do, I try to get a deeper understanding and broader context. These throw some typical stereotypes about the city without really providing context, either historical or contemporary. It's through articles such as these that people are not educated about beer, where it comes from, and what it can me and continue to hold on to either their ideas of superiority and smugness or passe city identity.