4 ms·

>"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 ri

>"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
  authenticity is a product of time and place. most traditional recipes, if they have ever been standardized, have only done so in the past 100 or so years. what we consider authentic Italian food now would not have been considered as such 2 or 300 years ago, but now we want to gatekeep based on arbitrary lines in the sand. as an example, a historic cooking show I watch got a fair amount of heat for making his Scottish-descended grandmother's Scottish shortbread recipe, which used rice flour. According to the authenticity experts, this was sacrilege because no true Scottish shortbread is made with rice flour, you use corn flour. And that may very well be true in 2021, but the show managed to pull a 1929 Scottish cookbook that used rice flour in their recipe; it turns out that corn flour is now common because corn flour became extremely cheap due to American corn production, but that is a fairly recent change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYltDdE8Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYltDdE8Cw
  - bllguo 5y ago
    Sure, so authenticity is a moving target defined by the current members of a culture. I don't think that is enough justification to ignore it entirely. Regardless of how murky the definition is, surely I can say that a margherita pizza is more authentic Italian than a Domino's pie. It's a spectrum, and I am arguing more for the idea of distinguishing between large differences on the scale rather than quibbling about minor ones. I can agree that example is taking things too far without much productive purpose.
numpad0 5y ago
I agree to that quote, and, I think Dishes feel "inauthentic" when they taste not good, or considerably worse, like the BBC rice[1]. California rolls, Katsu curry without katsu - can't have issues with great food. 1: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uncle-roger-rice-food-appropriation-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uncle-roger-rice-food... ps: The conversation here brought up a question inside me regarding English tea and tea preparation; never had a cup of English tea better than the shot of best Chinese tea I have had in my life. Shouldn't it be considered inauthentic then?

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
authenticity is a product of time and place. most traditional recipes, if they have ever been standardized, have only done so in the past 100 or so years. what we consider authentic Italian food now would not have been considered as such 2 or 300 years ago, but now we want to gatekeep based on arbitrary lines in the sand. as an example, a historic cooking show I watch got a fair amount of heat for making his Scottish-descended grandmother's Scottish shortbread recipe, which used rice flour. According to the authenticity experts, this was sacrilege because no true Scottish shortbread is made with rice flour, you use corn flour. And that may very well be true in 2021, but the show managed to pull a 1929 Scottish cookbook that used rice flour in their recipe; it turns out that corn flour is now common because corn flour became extremely cheap due to American corn production, but that is a fairly recent change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYltDdE8Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnYltDdE8Cw
- bllguo 5y ago
  Sure, so authenticity is a moving target defined by the current members of a culture. I don't think that is enough justification to ignore it entirely. Regardless of how murky the definition is, surely I can say that a margherita pizza is more authentic Italian than a Domino's pie. It's a spectrum, and I am arguing more for the idea of distinguishing between large differences on the scale rather than quibbling about minor ones. I can agree that example is taking things too far without much productive purpose.

numpad0 5y ago

I agree to that quote, and, I think Dishes feel "inauthentic" when they taste not good, or considerably worse, like the BBC rice[1]. California rolls, Katsu curry without katsu - can't have issues with great food. 1: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uncle-roger-rice-food-appropriation-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/uncle-roger-rice-food... ps: The conversation here brought up a question inside me regarding English tea and tea preparation; never had a cup of English tea better than the shot of best Chinese tea I have had in my life. Shouldn't it be considered inauthentic then?