On Sep 1, 2012 7:02 AM, "Udhay Shankar N" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, but by that logic, a place called "Shiok" run by a Malyali from > Delhi wouldn't be Thai, would it? Serious question. Of course not, "shiok" is a Malay word, not Thai... But more seriously, the whole discussion of "authenticity" in food is mostly a marker for people playing oneupmanship games. If you like the food what difference does it make? These days when I ask someone if something is "authentic" it's usually because I'm looking for a particular style and I want to know how likely I am to find it. Shiok was not "authentic" Malaysian any more than if I opened a place here and called it Melville Tiffin Room that would be an "authentic" tiffin room. (That reminds me of the guy here in Johannesburg who solemnly assured me that samosas were South African and that the correct pronunciation was "samosa." "no really, even my Indian friends pronounce it that way!" "yes, but are your Indian friends South African?" "yeah? so? ") "Authentic" is food prepared to be enjoyed by people from that region. If it succeeds it's "authentic." Regional food for non-locals is rarely authentic; and regional food prepared by non-natives is also perilous since the non-locals usually don't have the depth and experience to satisfy a native palate. Was the food prepared by Ferran Adria (a spaniard) in Roses (a spanish town) "authentic" spanish? I would say it was. Would the exact same food prepared by me in Johannesburg be authentic spanish food? No, it would not. I found *no* "authentic" non-Indian food in Bangalore. Certainly all of the "american" food had been localized to a greater or lesser degree and I can not imagine trying to serve it to americans in america. There was one Japanese place that had a few nearly authentic dishes but they were the exception. Simarly Korean, and for Chinese I give Baba Ling and Nanking props as a rare exception but even that menu was mostly for local tastes and I had to talk to Baba to get "authentic" chinese. The "italian" in Bangalore was heavily localized - I cannot imagine serving bangalore Italian to an Italian in Italy. And don't even get me started on the lack of French food. (e.g. The time I had to say to the *head chef* "no, foie gras is *not* like steak, you do not have to ask for it "rare" to get it pink in the middle.") The standard I use is "Can I imagine serving this in X *region*?" To me that's authentic. By that standard there is very little authentic food outside of the regions in which it originated. Usually to find it you have to seek out the local community of whatever group places catering to that community. So, for example, I have found almost no "authentic" Mexican food where there isn't a Mexican community But for cuisines that aren't inherently regional, how do you define "authentic." What constitutes "authentic" molecular gastronomy? What is "authentic" bread, beer, or bbq? -- Charles, off to a "braai" where I will cook mutton ribs that have been marinated in ground onion, balsamic, light soy, dark soy, fresh chilis, garlic, xiao hsing wine, and sichuan peppercorns. Authentic? Hardly. Delicious? I hope so!
