The Ranger wrote:
> Jim Lane > posted in message
> ...
>
>>In the past we've had heated discussions about authenticity
>>fo cuisine, particularly related to Mexican foof (natch, it is
>>a Mexican cooking group).
>>
>>Here's an Italian weighing in on the subject:

snip

> "Authenticity" is an albatross, an achor, hanging about a recipe's neck,
> always dragging at it, attempting to push it below the surface before the
> dogmatic-bound accept it.
>
> The Ranger
>

Interesting. Perhaps to those who are not themselves "authentic?" To
those "mongrels" without a sense of history? Is there any reason why
"authentic" should perish, in any aspect of life, other than making
those who are not, uncomfortable? That is what your diatribe carries
with it Ranger, your discomfort with the word. Your alienation from the
authentic. Were it valueless, you would ignore it. Can you? Or do your
hackles rise every time this comes up?

Is not the authentic the foundation upon which everything else is built?
Seems anarchists would be most interested is destroying or denigrating
authenticity (history), even in food. There will be no rules, anything goes.

"Authentic" is the base, Ranger, not an albatross. It gives something
its history. It does not drag anything anywhere, especially down or
pushing it below anything else. Not really.

But authenticity does exist. Like it or not, something can rightfully be
judged on its authenticity. If it is not, it is not. That does not speak
to whether or not it tastes good, looks good, smell good. Only if it is
authentic or not.

You are correct there are those who get overly hung up on the concept of
things having to be authentic. However, those individuals lie on both
sides of the issue, Ranger. Are you not as dogmatic as those you point
your finger at? On the other side of the issue, but nevertheless, dogmatic?


jim