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:

There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good? And is it
authentic?

We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our history.

And food is history.

Giuliano Bugialli



jim

"Jim Lane" > wrote 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:
>
> There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good? And is it
> authentic?
>
> We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our history.
>
> And food is history.
>
> Giuliano Bugialli
>
> jim

No reason not to start a conversation about this again Jim. Bugialli is
honored, but I suggest a longer list. This list starts to describe
authenticity and its destruction or abuse. Food IS history.

1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of forgetting or
corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
2. An history is reflected in an historical diet.
3. Culture is described by the development of a cuisine.
4. The destruction of a culture is marked by the destruction of its cultural
cuisine.
5. The borrowing of food cultures, without the destruction of two or more
cultures, can only be accomplished by recognizing the history and culture of
both the originator and the borrower.
6. Adaptation and absorption of one food culture into another creating a new
sub-cuisine must be reflected in terminology and acceptance of the reality
of the new sub-cuisine.


Charlie

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:13:43 GMT, "Charles Gifford"
> wrote:

>
>"Jim Lane" > wrote

>> There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good? And is it
>> authentic?
>>
>> We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our history.
>>
>> And food is history.
>>
>> Giuliano Bugialli
>
>No reason not to start a conversation about this again Jim. Bugialli is
>honored, but I suggest a longer list. This list starts to describe
>authenticity and its destruction or abuse. Food IS history.
>
>1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of forgetting or
>corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
>2. An history is reflected in an historical diet.
>3. Culture is described by the development of a cuisine.
>4. The destruction of a culture is marked by the destruction of its cultural
>cuisine.
>5. The borrowing of food cultures, without the destruction of two or more
>cultures, can only be accomplished by recognizing the history and culture of
>both the originator and the borrower.
>6. Adaptation and absorption of one food culture into another creating a new
>sub-cuisine must be reflected in terminology and acceptance of the reality
>of the new sub-cuisine.

I quarrel passionately with the term 'authentic.' Just taking an
American example, look at the recipes/methods for chile or barbecue.
Not only are there broad regional differences, but every enthusiastic
cook and restaurant has what he/it claims to be the 'authentic' or
only correct version. I assume the same is true with regional and
individual preferences all over the world. 'Traditional' may be a more
appropriate and elastic term.

Treating food as a sub-set of definable culture assumes that both
exist within some kind of impentrable geographic, temporal, and
political fortress, which is patently absurd. Culture and cuisine are
*always* changing. Trade, travel, and invasion change culture and
food. 'Historic' Mexican meals wouldn't include beef, pork, or goat.
No 'historic' European diet would contain tomatoes or potatoes. Indian
food would lack chile. The USA would lack apple pie. 'Though these
examples came about through contact between the Americas and the 'Old
World,' similar interaction occurs constantly between all aspects of
culture. Languages change and die out. Costume changes. Religious
affiliation changes. Architecture, art, music, literature all change
constantly.

Food may indeed be history, but that history is hardly one of pure
descent from some Ur-cusine of any sort.

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:
>
> There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good?
> And is it authentic?
>
> We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our
> history.
>
> And food is history.
>
> Giuliano Bugialli

Main Entry: au·then·tic
Pronunciation: &-'then-tik, o-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English autentik, from Middle French autentique, from Late
Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos, from authentEs perpetrator,
master, from aut- + -hentEs (akin to Greek anyein to accomplish, Sanskrit
sanoti he gains)
1 obsolete : AUTHORITATIVE
2 a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact
<paints an authentic picture of our society> b : conforming to an original
so as to reproduce essential features <an authentic reproduction of a
colonial farmhouse> c : made or done the same way as an original <authentic
Mexican fare>
3 : not false or imitation : REAL, ACTUAL <based on authentic documents> <an
authentic cockney accent>
4 a of a church mode : ranging upward from the keynote -- compare PLAGAL 1 b
of a cadence : progressing from the dominant chord to the tonic -- compare
PLAGAL 2
5 : true to one's own personality, spirit, or character
- au·then·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
- au·then·tic·i·ty /"o-"then-'ti-s&-tE, -th&n-/ noun

Pasta, tomatoes, and many spices used in many "authentic" dishes being
trumpeted loudly nowadays were not always part of the Italian diet (prior to
their stealing them from other cultures and lands). How does Mr. Bugialli
justify the use of these items and dishes? Does authenticity have to be a
certain age before traditionalists will accept it? Do the cultures that
provided these dishes and foods have to be completely subverted and/or
destroyed before the superceding culture accepts them as their own?

"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

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

Charles Gifford wrote:

> "Jim Lane" > wrote 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:
>>
>>There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good? And is it
>>authentic?
>>
>>We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our history.
>>
>>And food is history.
>>
>>Giuliano Bugialli
>>
>>jim
>
>
> No reason not to start a conversation about this again Jim. Bugialli is
> honored, but I suggest a longer list. This list starts to describe
> authenticity and its destruction or abuse. Food IS history.
>
> 1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of forgetting or
> corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
> 2. An history is reflected in an historical diet.
> 3. Culture is described by the development of a cuisine.
> 4. The destruction of a culture is marked by the destruction of its cultural
> cuisine.
> 5. The borrowing of food cultures, without the destruction of two or more
> cultures, can only be accomplished by recognizing the history and culture of
> both the originator and the borrower.
> 6. Adaptation and absorption of one food culture into another creating a new
> sub-cuisine must be reflected in terminology and acceptance of the reality
> of the new sub-cuisine.
>
>
> Charlie
>
>

Great list, Charlie. Each of these topics deserves its own thread.

If no one else has divided this up, I'll do it later tonight.


jim

Frogleg wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:13:43 GMT, "Charles Gifford"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Jim Lane" > wrote
>
>
>>>There are only two questions to ask about food. Is it good? And is it
>>>authentic?
>>>
>>>We are open to new ideas, but not if it means destroying our history.
>>>
>>>And food is history.
>>>
>>>Giuliano Bugialli
>>
>>No reason not to start a conversation about this again Jim. Bugialli is
>>honored, but I suggest a longer list. This list starts to describe
>>authenticity and its destruction or abuse. Food IS history.
>>
>>1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of forgetting or
>>corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
>>2. An history is reflected in an historical diet.
>>3. Culture is described by the development of a cuisine.
>>4. The destruction of a culture is marked by the destruction of its cultural
>>cuisine.
>>5. The borrowing of food cultures, without the destruction of two or more
>>cultures, can only be accomplished by recognizing the history and culture of
>>both the originator and the borrower.
>>6. Adaptation and absorption of one food culture into another creating a new
>>sub-cuisine must be reflected in terminology and acceptance of the reality
>>of the new sub-cuisine.
>
>
> I quarrel passionately with the term 'authentic.' Just taking an
> American example, look at the recipes/methods for chile or barbecue.

Good thoughts, Frogleg. I'll divide the list up into separate threads
later tonight. It should help keep things "clean."

So we don't have a quoting problem, would you then cut and paste your
thoughts to the individual threads?

Hmmm, I see I'll probably have to do the subthreads now. Oh well, its
only a short delay for my ride.


jim

Charles Gifford wrote:

> 1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of
forgetting or
> corroding the traditional nor its terminology.

Charles Gifford wrote:

> 2. An history is reflected in an historical diet.

Charles Gifford wrote:

> 3. Culture is described by the development of a cuisine.

Charles Gifford wrote:

> 4. The destruction of a culture is marked by the destruction of its cultural
> cuisine.

Charles Gifford wrote:

> 5. The borrowing of food cultures, without the destruction of two or more
> cultures, can only be accomplished by recognizing the history and culture of
> both the originator and the borrower.

Charles Gifford wrote:


> 6. Adaptation and absorption of one food culture into another creating a new
> sub-cuisine must be reflected in terminology and acceptance of the reality
> of the new sub-cuisine.

Giuliano Bugialli.

Yep, this from a guy whose cooking classes I have taken who dumps so much salt
into his dishes that only an Italian could love them. Italians have a long
tradition of oversalting their food. So I guess it would destroy his history
by using a little less salt?

Sorry about my rant here, but I got really depressed in his cooking class when
I saw how much salt he was throwing into everything.

Jimmy-Bob-Jumbo > asked rhetorically throughout
message ...
["Authenticity is" text elided]

I'm sorry to see that you're no better at reading here than in sdnet.eats
but I'll make it easy on you so there's less strain this time.

Authenticity is not the base for anything except what the cook believes it
to be.

I can easily point out that dishes that substitute anything non-native
(olive oil, corn, pork, beef) for those regions a cook is attempting to
mimic; none of those dishes that used those verboten products can ever be
"authentic." Because those items were not available to Mayans or Aztecs (or
the Yuccans).

Yet each culture has adapted their cooking, acceptance of different -- and
new -- foods, methods for preparing those new foods, and manners in which to
serve them as items became more available through trade.

A culture that holds so rigidly to the past will be supplanted -- often
violently -- while those that adapt and change to suit the population stay
around longer.

The Ranger
--
When you momentarily shifted from your customary pathological diatribes [..]
I began thinking your pills were working. Recent behavior indicates,
however, that you've been breaking them in half.
-- Oorah!!, sdnet.eats, 6/19/03

"Jim Lane" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Gifford wrote:
>
> > 1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of
> forgetting or
> > corroding the traditional nor its terminology.


Jim, as I have observed before and I am starting to see here already there
are three main things you can watch for and enjoy. These will be accompanied
by personal attacks of course.

1. Most people have no idea what "history" is nor how to apply it in
discussions such as this.

2. The above but substitute "culture" for history.

3. Most people reject the word "authenticity" either because of a lack of
desire to discuss the subject or because they don't wish to use their
intellect to actually think about the subject. The lack of desire is usually
due to a previous stance and an unwillingness to admit being "wrong".

Charlie

Charles Gifford > supported Jimmy-Joe-Jim-Bob's post
in message ink.net with
> > > 1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense
> > > of forgetting or corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
[snip]
> 1. Most people have no idea what "history" is nor how to
> apply it in discussions such as this.

Why not provide a working definition (to those of us in the camp of "'A'
isn't the all-important fact to enjoying a particular cuisine as some
others") so that we might benefit from that? Examples would be easy to
support or refute after providing such information.

> 2. The above but substitute "culture" for history.

Not always because disparate cultures often didn't mesh easily. The Mayans,
for all their knowledge, were quite violent during their empire building.
The Aztecs were no slouches, either, and happily subverting the conquered
and forcing their [the Aztec's] cultural dominance upon those cultures they
conquered (just as the Spanish subverted them later.)

> 3. Most people reject the word "authenticity" either because
> of a lack of desire to discuss the subject or because they don't
> wish to use their intellect to actually think about the subject.
> The lack of desire is usually due to a previous stance and an
> unwillingness to admit being "wrong".

You weren't here during the V Inquisition, were you?

Discussions on "authenticity" /always/ brought forth a veritable avalanche
of "You're wrong and can't know 'authentic' because you aren't Mexican! I
live it and I'm always right!" While entertaining in many ways, it often
worked more harm than good. New posters would stop by, post something, he
would jump out and lash at them, and that would be their one-and-only-post.
For those that argued for a lighter touch to the keyboard (Linda), scorn was
visited upon them, too.

I, for one, enjoy many of the topics that do get discussed nowadays and
would not wish a return to the past for many reasons. I am always learning
about new-and-different cultures and hopefully am able to give-and-take with
equal abandon during that process.

<shrug>

Whatever floats your boat.

The Ranger

"Steve Wertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:48:24 GMT, "Charles Gifford"
> > wrote:
>
> >3. Most people reject the word "authenticity" either because of a lack
of
> >desire to discuss the subject or because they don't wish to use their
> >intellect to actually think about the subject. The lack of desire is
usually
> >due to a previous stance and an unwillingness to admit being "wrong".
>
> Or, because practically every thread Jim participates in turns
> into a flame-fest and ends in a disaster.
>
> He just wants to stir up shit again.
>
> -sw

Thanks for supporting my point. ;-)

Charlie

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
>
> You weren't here during the V Inquisition, were you?

Sure I was. It had it's moments. It, in part, helped me form my list for
Jim. ;-)

Charlie

Charles Gifford > wrote in message
nk.net...
> "The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> > You weren't here during the V Inquisition, were you?
> >
> Sure I was. It had it's moments. It, in part, helped me form
> my list for Jim. ;-)

So where's that working definition then? <EG>
(HA! You /can't/ provide it because you haven't lived it!)

The Ranger

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...

<snipped for ease of reading>


> "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

So seldom do I read a post of such independent and poetically correct
thought.

I bow to the Ranger /.

Doc

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> Charles Gifford > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > "The Ranger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > You weren't here during the V Inquisition, were you?
> > >
> > Sure I was. It had it's moments. It, in part, helped me form
> > my list for Jim. ;-)
>
> So where's that working definition then? <EG>
> (HA! You /can't/ provide it because you haven't lived it!)
>
> The Ranger

That, my dear Ranger, is the discussion's "raison d'étre"

Charlie,
P.S. Can too provide it!! If I wanna!

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:51:41 -0700, Jim Lane
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Good thoughts, Frogleg. I'll divide the list up into separate threads
>>later tonight. It should help keep things "clean."
>
>
> Or rather, muddy things up in your usual style. Thanks for the
> warning.
>
> -sw

Always the optimist, I see. **** dowwn your own leg.


jim

Steve Wertz wrote:

> You must be on drugs, Jim.
>
> -sw

Hmmm, must have stolen them from you, mentalmidget.


jim

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 01:14:38 -0700, Jim Lane
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>In the past we've had heated discussions about authenticity fo cuisine,
>>particularly related to Mexican foof (natch, it is a Mexican cooking group).
>
>
> Trolling again Jim? Are you not happy unless you have something
> to argue about?
>
> -sw

How's the rubber room, clown?


jim

Charles Gifford wrote:

> "Jim Lane" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Charles Gifford wrote:
>>
>> > 1. New ideas should be welcomed, but not at the expense of
>>forgetting or
>>
>>>corroding the traditional nor its terminology.
>
>
>
> Jim, as I have observed before and I am starting to see here already there
> are three main things you can watch for and enjoy. These will be accompanied
> by personal attacks of course.
>
> 1. Most people have no idea what "history" is nor how to apply it in
> discussions such as this.
>
> 2. The above but substitute "culture" for history.
>
> 3. Most people reject the word "authenticity" either because of a lack of
> desire to discuss the subject or because they don't wish to use their
> intellect to actually think about the subject. The lack of desire is usually
> due to a previous stance and an unwillingness to admit being "wrong".
>
> Charlie
>
>

This is your list of criteria, Charles. I merely separated them into
indivdual threads for the ease of answering them. I agree with you on
all accounts. You might add that anarchists do not like the word
"authentic" any more than an aetheist does "religion." We already see
Wertzs's mentalmidgetry in play over my dividng up the message.
Prophetic, you are, Charles.


jim



jim

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 08:48:24 GMT, "Charles Gifford"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>3. Most people reject the word "authenticity" either because of a lack of
>>desire to discuss the subject or because they don't wish to use their
>>intellect to actually think about the subject. The lack of desire is usually
>>due to a previous stance and an unwillingness to admit being "wrong".
>
>
> Or, because practically every thread Jim participates in turns
> into a flame-fest and ends in a disaster.
>
> He just wants to stir up shit again.
>
> -sw

So far, child, you were the only one, until my replies to you. YOU are
the stirrer in this thread. Proud of yourself?


jim