porcupine Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I'm always entertained by the back-and-forth over what's authentic in a particular dish (Philly cheesesteaks, for example), or whether some ingredient is traditional or not. To me it's unimportant, as I prefer my food to be tasty first and foremost. But obviously it's very important to many people. What's the big deal? Is it really, honestly better to you if you know it's authentic? I was recommending pupusas in another thread and imagining another one of those "but is it authentic?" discussions starting. And I thought to myself, "I don't really care, because they taste good". Cathal Armstrong and Frank Ruta cook up some mighty fine eats that aren't authentic Irish or Italian, as far as I can tell, but you don't see me turning my nose up at Restaurant Eve and Palena just because. But then maybe what they cook is authentically Cathal and authentically Frank, and that's important, too. And come to think of it, my favorite Vietnamese place is one sometimes derided as not being authentic enough. Maybe that means I don't really like Vietnamese. But another consideration - there's a lot of French influence in the cooking, as a result of colonialization, so who's to say that a beef stew is no good because it marries French technique with Vietnamese ingredients? How long does it take for a change to become traditional, anyway? Are tomatoes traditional in Italian cooking? What defines traditional American? Have we been around long enough to have traditions? Just some thoughts on a hot summer day. Please take no offense: I aim to start a cordial discussion, not a flame war. edited for clarity. I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now