4 ms·

What exactly is hilarious about the concept of authenticity? I don't see the argument

by bllguo 5y ago

grey-area 5y ago
There is no single ‘authentic’ version of a given dish, just infinite variety and shades of authenticity depending on what you mean by that and your particular experiences.
- bllguo 5y ago
  I agree with most of that (I don't think personal experiences play much of a part; it's more about culture IMO), but I read the comment as suggesting authenticity is meaningless, which is a sentiment I have heard before and very much reject
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    The fetishization of the authentic is overwrought and is basically just exoticism. Most traditional recipes, if they were even standardized (and the aforementioned mapo tofu, as an example, is not at all) have only been like that in the last 100-150 years. In fact, I have seen people claim food that actually does come from China/Hong Kong as inauthentic. As an example, honey walnut shrimp is actually a dish from Hong Kong style western cuisine, which lost popularity in its homeland but is still made by the diaspora. To fetishize the authenticity of food is to reject progress and innovation. Korean or Indian food is no less authentic with the addition of chilis, even though those are not native plants to those regions and were introduced from the New World.
    - bllguo 5y ago
      What a coincidence, I was actually thinking of honey walnut shrimp! If you conflate quality with authenticity I could see how "fetishizing" authenticity is tantamount to rejecting innovation. But I think they are distinct concepts, so I have to disagree. I also wouldn't characterize my stance as fetishization, more that authenticity is also something to appreciate, below more important factors like taste.
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        Plenty of people conflate “authenticity” with “real”, and the implied antonym is “fake” which has plenty of negative meaning and has certainly been used to that effect. E.g. “real food does not contain MSG.”
skyyler 5y ago
>"Thirty years ago, there was no sushi in the U.K. or the U.S. Then someone introduced it: It was strange, it was wild—oh my God, it's raw fish with vinegary rice and horseradish—give me a break, why would I want to eat that? But people persevered and now there is sushi in every major city in the world. And it's popular too. What if I said sushi was a fraud, that it was never a traditional cuisine in Japan, and this guy called Mr. Sushi invented it? So instead of it being an authentic regional cuisine, no we lied to you, it is an invention. Would that make a difference or not? If it is really delicious, does it matter and should I care if it comes from Japan or California or even if it has no regional origin?" I think Nathan Myhrvold’s takes on the “authenticity” of food are nice.
- pkaye 5y ago
  I've read that Salmon sushi is a recent thing for the Japanese after Norway marketed their salmon to them. https://www.npr.org/2015/09/18/441530790/how-the-desperate-norwegian-salmon-industry-created-a-sushi-staple https://www.npr.org/2015/09/18/441530790/how-the-desperate-n...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bllguo 5y ago
  Yes, it doesn't matter for taste, and I am not saying the authentic version of a dish is inherently "better". But of course it makes a difference, it affects how we perceive Japanese culture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying non-authentic foods or being inspired to make variations/fusion dishes, but ignoring their origins is very insensitive IMO. I don't see what is so painful about acknowledging authenticity. Edit: really it boils down to food being a huge part of culture. For example, when you say Pizza Hut is authentic Italian cuisine, you are saying something about Italian culture, and wanting to correct that is a perfectly normal thing to feel. We should not conflate authenticity with quality, but authenticity still matters.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago

What exactly is hilarious about the concept of authenticity? I don't see the argument

by bllguo 5y ago

What exactly is hilarious about the concept of authenticity? I don't see the argument

There is no single ‘authentic’ version of a given dish, just infinite variety and shades of authenticity depending on what you mean by that and your particular experiences.

bllguo 5y ago
I agree with most of that (I don't think personal experiences play much of a part; it's more about culture IMO), but I read the comment as suggesting authenticity is meaningless, which is a sentiment I have heard before and very much reject
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  The fetishization of the authentic is overwrought and is basically just exoticism. Most traditional recipes, if they were even standardized (and the aforementioned mapo tofu, as an example, is not at all) have only been like that in the last 100-150 years. In fact, I have seen people claim food that actually does come from China/Hong Kong as inauthentic. As an example, honey walnut shrimp is actually a dish from Hong Kong style western cuisine, which lost popularity in its homeland but is still made by the diaspora. To fetishize the authenticity of food is to reject progress and innovation. Korean or Indian food is no less authentic with the addition of chilis, even though those are not native plants to those regions and were introduced from the New World.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    What a coincidence, I was actually thinking of honey walnut shrimp! If you conflate quality with authenticity I could see how "fetishizing" authenticity is tantamount to rejecting innovation. But I think they are distinct concepts, so I have to disagree. I also wouldn't characterize my stance as fetishization, more that authenticity is also something to appreciate, below more important factors like taste.
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      Plenty of people conflate “authenticity” with “real”, and the implied antonym is “fake” which has plenty of negative meaning and has certainly been used to that effect. E.g. “real food does not contain MSG.”

skyyler 5y ago

>"Thirty years ago, there was no sushi in the U.K. or the U.S. Then someone introduced it: It was strange, it was wild—oh my God, it's raw fish with vinegary rice and horseradish—give me a break, why would I want to eat that? But people persevered and now there is sushi in every major city in the world. And it's popular too. What if I said sushi was a fraud, that it was never a traditional cuisine in Japan, and this guy called Mr. Sushi invented it? So instead of it being an authentic regional cuisine, no we lied to you, it is an invention. Would that make a difference or not? If it is really delicious, does it matter and should I care if it comes from Japan or California or even if it has no regional origin?" I think Nathan Myhrvold’s takes on the “authenticity” of food are nice.

pkaye 5y ago
I've read that Salmon sushi is a recent thing for the Japanese after Norway marketed their salmon to them. https://www.npr.org/2015/09/18/441530790/how-the-desperate-norwegian-salmon-industry-created-a-sushi-staple https://www.npr.org/2015/09/18/441530790/how-the-desperate-n...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bllguo 5y ago
Yes, it doesn't matter for taste, and I am not saying the authentic version of a dish is inherently "better". But of course it makes a difference, it affects how we perceive Japanese culture. There's absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying non-authentic foods or being inspired to make variations/fusion dishes, but ignoring their origins is very insensitive IMO. I don't see what is so painful about acknowledging authenticity. Edit: really it boils down to food being a huge part of culture. For example, when you say Pizza Hut is authentic Italian cuisine, you are saying something about Italian culture, and wanting to correct that is a perfectly normal thing to feel. We should not conflate authenticity with quality, but authenticity still matters.
- bobthepanda 5y ago