"Asian Dining Rules" -- Fat Guy's new book

[gwilson]

First, I'm really glad that you're writing this. It sounds like something I'd love to read (as I did your first book).

I do have one idea, but I'm not sure if it's exactly compatible to your book. My problem has always been an issue of authenticity. (Not to start a debate about the merits of 'authentic'.) If someone goes to the typical American Chinese restaurant, they may love it (which is fine). But then they go somewhere else and get an 'authentic' dish, and hate it. Even though it may be prepared exactly the way it should be and tastes appropriately. Without actually travelling to Asia, how do you go about recognizing what is good and what isn't (regardless if you personally like it)?

Okay, reading over that, it probably doesn't have anything to do with your book. I had it worded much better in my head, but it's not coming out that way now. I'll still post it in case someone can interpret what I really mean. (And maybe after this headache goes away, I can reword what I was trying to say.)

-Greg

[Fat Guy]

(Not to start a debate about the merits of 'authentic'.)

Sorry. Too late. You now get to hear my lecture about the tyranny of authenticity.

Though I’ve eaten enough Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indian and Southeast Asian food in my life that my Caucasian DNA could at any moment spontaneously resequence itself into Asian DNA, I’ve never spent much time in Asia. I’ve enjoyed the limited time I’ve spent there tremendously, though I haven’t enjoyed the flight (my voluminous eating is evident in my bulk, which doesn’t take well to 20 hours in an economy-class seat).

Nonetheless, it only takes about one minute in Asia to notice that the food there is quite different from its representation in restaurants in North America. Many of the dishes I enjoyed at Empire Szechuan growing up, for example, were Chinese-American adaptations: egg rolls, General Tso’s chicken, egg foo yung. Thus, many people, and especially food writers, have called these dishes “inauthentic.”

Reading the glossy food magazines, the newsletters, and the Internet, and even when talking to educated gourmets, I get the sense that the authenticity police are everywhere these days. Have you ever dined in a Japanese restaurant with friends who have just returned from Japan? "Oh, in Japan a restaurant only serves one thing," they'll inevitably say. “You never see tempura, noodles and sushi on the same menu.”

Authenticity as commonly understood by today’s reigning culinary authorities refers to the preservation of "original" recipes, presented with some historical and cultural context. In the language of Merriam-Webster, authentic means “conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features.”

But what if evolution itself lies at the core of authenticity?

After all, there were no hot chilies in China’s Sichuan province, or anywhere else in Asia, until long after the discovery of the New World. When that beloved red pepper first appeared in China, did the local food cognoscenti protest, "We don't use these things in authentic Sichuan cuisine"? No cuisine springs into existence as a fully formed entity, and all living cuisines evolve.

There was no tomato sauce – and there were certainly no sun-dried tomatoes – until centuries after the tomato first reached Europe from the New World. We could just as easily imagine knee-jerk authenticity-based complaints about chocolate in France, and wine in Australia. If you dug really deep, you'd probably find that at some point in prehistory the very notion of cooking beasts over a fire instead of eating their bloody haunches raw was scorned for its inauthenticity, too.

“Fusion” is not some trend that started in the 1980s. It’s the history of cuisine. And since everything in the world of food likely had some precursory experience, wouldn't it be smarter for us to make allowances for what "authentic" really means? If you ask me, such tolerance is necessary when you dine out in a place like America, where just about everybody came from somewhere else. Chinese chefs, on arriving in America, found different ingredients, faced different challenges, and adapted. They created new dishes and extended their native cuisines.

I believe these cooks demonstrate that authenticity isn't a repetition of history. Real authenticity, to me, is grounded in being faithful to oneself. This is the last definition given by Merriam-Webster, but to me it is the most appropriate for cuisine: “true to one's own personality, spirit, or character.” That's why, despite their breaks with tradition, there's nothing inauthentic about those big, fat, American egg rolls, or Japanese restaurants with far-ranging menus. Sometimes these concepts even get exported back to their parent cultures, for example with the opening of Nobu (a New York restaurant, based on a Los Angeles restaurant, serving Peruvian-influenced Japanese fusion cuisine) in Tokyo. Change for its own sake is phony, but true originality is authentic.

To me, what makes America a supremely dynamic eating destination is exactly its unabashed dedication to what the old school writers would call inauthenticity: America doesn't attempt to hide the actuality that human history is built on immigration, assimilation, and invention. My memories of dining at Empire Szechuan would be utterly foreign to a resident of Sichaun province, but they’re the authentic experiences of my life, an American life.

Rather than obsessing about historical notions of authenticity, I propose finding culinary validation within ourselves and accepting that tomorrow's authenticity is always the child of today's inauthenticity. Those who forget this lesson will, I think, be relegated to quibbling about trivialities, like faux quartermasters debating the historical accuracy of their Civil War reenactment uniforms.

Without actually travelling to Asia, how do you go about recognizing what is good and what isn't (regardless if you personally like it)?

By using what the information science people call "secondary epistemic criteria." How do you ever decide whom to trust when you don't personally possess all the information you'd need to make the decision yourself? You look for various indicia of credibility. Think about reading just about any eG Forums topic. In most cases it doesn't take very long to identify the most credible posts -- your brain automatically weighs several factors (your familiarity with and opinions about the member who's posting, the level of detail and apparent familiarity with the subject matter, a tone that resonates with you) and comes up with a ranking.

In the restaurant context, this sort of analysis can occur at various levels. You might dine with someone who has more information (you can be sure that any good restaurant reviewer, when reviewing a restaurant that serves an unfamiliar cuisine, will take an expert along to dinner). You might be able to derive some information from the way the restaurant is set up, who's eating there, what kind of comments you get from the staff, what you've read in books, magazines, newspapers and online, etc. Which is not to say that a restaurant full of people with Oriental faces is always going to be serving food just like you'd see in Asia -- that's a common misconception that leads to a lot of false positives.

[Peter Green]

Ah, to take arms against the forces of "correctness" and "authenticity".

I've had several "lively" arguements with people about the use of tomatoes in Thai cuisine. They fight and argue, and rail against how it doesn't belong in the cuisine.

But when it comes down to it, many of my Thai friends are going to have to have their bottles of ketsup pried out of their cold, dead fingers.

People eat what they like. Thai food evolved from contact with the West, China, and the Subcontinent. They found what they liked, and used it. You can wander about and see the different levels of penetration. Cambodia, despite its coast, was cut off from the Euros, and so is weaker on chilis (which is kinda nice, as the herbs come out). The Lao are more prestine in some ways, not using as much coconut milk in their curries (a Sri Lankan thing), but you'll find all sorts of French influences in Luang Prabang and Vientiane.

Countering this, there've been a very good set of articles in the Bangkok Post over the last couple of years detailing how the demand for "fast foods" has led to the cutting of corners on some dishes. It is now very, very hard to find a good mee krob, as the particular lime used in finishing the dish just isn't worth the bother of many of the vendors. Do the majority of the office workers care? probably not. They've got an hour (or three...this is Thailand) to do lunch.

Okay, I have to go to the kitchen now.

But I feel better for that rant.

Fight the good fight, Steven.

[Fat Guy]

So maybe you all could help me with some idea generation here. One of the things I want to include in the book is a set of cross-cultural cuisine comparisons. These would be little sidebars (or shaded boxes, or whatever the book designer chooses) sprinkled throughout the book, discussing similarities among Asian cuisines (and beyond).

So, for example, dumplings. Pretty much every Asian cuisine has a version of these, so I'd do a little guide to dumpling types, with brief descriptions of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., dumplings, and also some examples of dumplings from non-Asian cuisines. This I think, in addition to perhaps being interesting, could help demystify a new cuisine for someone who has never, for example, had Korean food.

So these are the ones I've thought of so far:

- Dumplings

- Curries

- Wraps (Chinese moo-shu, Korean ssam, various Southeast Asian wraps,

Indian frankie)

- Noodles (this might be a longer piece; also interesting that India seems not to have a significant noodle culture)

Any other thoughts? And does this sort of comparison chart/sidebar seem like something that might be a good addition to the book?

[David Ross]

So maybe you all could help me with some idea generation here. One of the things I want to include in the book is a set of cross-cultural cuisine comparisons. These would be little sidebars (or shaded boxes, or whatever the book designer chooses) sprinkled throughout the book, discussing similarities among Asian cuisines (and beyond).

So, for example, dumplings. Pretty much every Asian cuisine has a version of these, so I'd do a little guide to dumpling types, with brief descriptions of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., dumplings, and also some examples of dumplings from non-Asian cuisines. This I think, in addition to perhaps being interesting, could help demystify a new cuisine for someone who has never, for example, had Korean food.

So these are the ones I've thought of so far:

- Dumplings

- Curries

- Wraps (Chinese moo-shu, Korean ssam, various Southeast Asian wraps,

Indian frankie)

- Noodles (this might be a longer piece; also interesting that India seems not to have a significant noodle culture)

Any other thoughts? And does this sort of comparison chart/sidebar seem like something that might be a good addition to the book?

←

I think it is a great idea. I think a lot of people don't understand there are very subtle differences between various Asian cuisines. If they gain a greater appreciation of the differences between noodles from Shanghai vs. noodles from Vietnam, they gain a greater appreciation for the flavors in the different styles of noodles. The end result is learning more about the world's food and cooking styles, and hopefully an urge to try that cooking at home.

I suppose today's publishing world is quite competitive when it comes to books about food and cooking and of course, you want to set yourself apart, not only to be profitable but for people to like your book. I think adding the comparisons will help you be unique.

You may want to also consider soups since they are such an integral part of Asian cuisines. I haven't done much research on the differences in soups throughout Asia, but I cook lots of different types of Asian soups. I know that curry style soups with coconut milk are popular in Thailand, while the Chinese tend to use lots of odd things like dried fungus in their soups. Just another idea for you and good luck.

[Fat Guy]

Soups! Excellent idea. It's such a good idea I have no idea how I'm going to keep it to a manageable size! (I guess by just isolating the most central examples from each cuisine.)

[David Ross]

Soups! Excellent idea. It's such a good idea I have no idea how I'm going to keep it to a manageable size! (I guess by just isolating the most central examples from each cuisine.)

←

I hear you. I thought of how large the subject of Asian soups would be-a subject unto itself that could probably fill page after page. It sounded so big to me I almost didn't want to suggest it to you.

Without any research of my own, off the top of my head I would agree with you-start with a central premise and then just highlight some differences from that point.

Maybe start with the base for the soups-like chicken stock or seafood stock, then speak to the differences in how the soups are garnished. For example in Pho Soups in Vietnam the broth may start as standard chicken broth, and then a plate of garnishes is served with the soup like thin strips of beef, cilantro, lime and noodles. In China the basic chicken broth may be flavored with shark's fin or dried fungus and chrysanthemum bulbs. Something like that-start with the concept of basic chicken broth and then how the different cultures add different ingredients to make their soups unique.

[Fat Guy]

I think what I'll probably do with all of these is consult my collection of restaurant menus in order to determine the dishes customers are most likely to encounter. That will narrow the field a little bit.

[Peter Green]

More topics for comparison.......

Pickles (which would include kim chi, of course)

Drinking culture, and the foods that go with it

Tea (and its culture)

[gwilson]

So, for example, dumplings. Pretty much every Asian cuisine has a version of these, so I'd do a little guide to dumpling types, with brief descriptions of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc., dumplings, and also some examples of dumplings from non-Asian cuisines. This I think, in addition to perhaps being interesting, could help demystify a new cuisine for someone who has never, for example, had Korean food.

This is actually what I was trying to say (mostly). Something of a guide for people completely new to a specific cuisine to let them know what the main flavors/dishes/ingredients are to that cuisine. Thank you for saying it so much better than me.

And just for the record - in my earlier post, I should have used the word traditional instead of authentic. That day-glo sweet and sour sauce is authentic to Chinese-American cuisine, but it's not traditional Chinese. (Or something like that.) And there's nothing wrong with that. I was just wondering how you can go to a restaurant and distinguish the 'traditional' from the 'authentic'. And the cuisine comparison chart things would be very useful in that. Thanks again.

-Greg

[KatieLoeb]

Howzabout different uses of soy and soy products/sauces in the various Asian cuisines? I always think of tofu in Chinese food and miso soup, but would love some guidance toward tofu in Korean food, for example.

[Fat Guy]

More topics for comparison.......

Pickles (which would include kim chi, of course)

Drinking culture, and the foods that go with it

Tea (and its culture)

←

I think there needs to be something about kimchi, and pan chan in general, in the Korean section of the book, but I'm not seeing enough pickles in non-Korean Asian restaurants in the US for there to be enough substance for a comparison. I think something about beverages -- both alcoholic and non-alcoholic -- is a must, that's a great idea. Tea, I haven't been to a restaurant here that takes it seriously enough to mention, so it's not really something I'd cover in this book, even though the topic interests me.

[Fat Guy]

Howzabout different uses of soy and soy products/sauces in the various Asian cuisines?  I always think of tofu in Chinese food and miso soup, but would love some guidance toward tofu in Korean food, for example.

←

Tofu. Check. Definitely need to do something on that.

Another idea I had overnight: desserts.

[annecros]

Any other thoughts? And does this sort of comparison chart/sidebar seem like something that might be a good addition to the book?

←

Oh, pull quotes and sidebars are the bomb. Do. Helps build anticipation for the subject matter about the topic.

What about rice?

And what about dropping a bullet in each side bar that reflects what a typical stupid American thinks of when they hear the word dumpling? Sort of an Eurocentric definition, followed by contrasting concepts of a dumpling in Asian foods?

[Fat Guy]

Rice. Check.

[slkinsey]

WRT "authentic" and "traditional" it seems to me that there is an easy way to look at this if it is an American restaurant serving non-American food.

"Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin. If Thai people in Thailand are using ketchup, then it would be "authentic" to do so in a restaurant here. If Japanese restaurants tend to feature one dish or style of food only, then to feature many dishes or styles of food would be "inauthentic." Whether this is good or bad on either count is a matter of opinion. "Authentic" doesn't necessarily equal "good" nor does "inauthentic" necessarily equal "bad." There can also be different ways to consider the "authenticity" of what a restaurant is doing and serving. General Tso's Chicken is "inauthentic" if one is using Chinese-in-China cooking as the measuring stick. However, as Steven points out, it can be considered "authentic" on the basis of being Chinese-in-America cooking. Similar things could be said about much of Italian-American cooking. Part of looking at it this way is understanding that "authentic" changes with the times. The Thai cooking that is happening in Thailand is always going to be "authentic" on this basis. When Thai people began using ketchup with any frequency, it immediately became "authentic."

"Traditional," on the other hand, moves a lot more slowly than "authentic" -- although it, too, evolves. "Traditional" in this context could be taken to mean "what has historically been done." So, looking at the introduction of .e.g., chili peppers into Asian cooking, tomatoes into Italian cooking, potatoes into Eastern European cooking... when they first began to be used, they were not "traditional." But, after a couple hundred years of use the tradition had changed and they became "traditional." Looking at it this way, using ketchup in Thai cooking would be "authentic" but not yet "traditional." Maybe 50 or 100 years from now, it will be "traditional."

[Big Bunny]

How many volumes will this book be?

Asia is big, and there is a lot of history to deal with. Food is all about history and geography.

My guess is that you will be torn between showing all of the links and relationships that exist between these cuisines and the sheer impossibility of really doing the subject(s) justice in the limits of one book.

Over the weekend I did the "Hunan Steak Kew" recipe from Michael Tong's book. This is a great example of "Authentic American-Chinese Restaurant Cuisine."

I usually read several recipes before doing one. Eileen Yin-fei Lo mentions the possibility the "kew" is actually a Chinese-American pronunciation of cube, and that the idea of big chunks was inspired by the easy availability of beef in the U.S.

Of course there is no "steak kew" in Hunan (Or, maybe there is now), and the Shun Lee dish is really spiced-up (American-) Cantonese, but mainly it is a simply delicious dish in the American-Chinese restaurant tradition.

Hmmm. That may be hard to quantify, but that quality of self conscious "deliciousness" often separates restaurant cuisine from traditional (everyday) cuisine, doesn't it?

BB

[Fat Guy]

"Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin.

←

I'm not so sure a pure geographic definition of authenticity makes sense, especially not when you're talking about cultures where not just a few people but millions are living in the diaspora. But assuming a geographic definition, to put it in context one has to note that today's Asia is incredibly modern and international. If you look at a major Chinese city like Shanghai, international influences are the norm in the newer restaurants. I have a file of about 50 clips like this one from Travel + Leisure:

Housed in a slender, two-story space near the Forbidden City, RBL (53 Dong An Men; 86-10/6522-1389; www.rbl-china.com; dinner for two $125) has a wave-shaped bamboo ceiling and soldier-neat rows of white Scandinavian chairs, courtesy of Handel Lee (the man behind Three on the Bund). Whether he's improvising artful plates of sashimi or dishing up seasonal main courses like grilled moonfish with Sichuan peppercorns, sliced truffles, and Chinese broccoli, chef Max Levy employs local products, sourced from Dalian to Hainan.

(My emphasis.)

Today it is not particularly remarkable for a chef named Max Levy to serve sashimi and truffles in Shanghai. The people I know who've traveled to Shanghai recently have reported that saffron is all the rage, and that Western-style platings and service are becoming standard at the newer, upscale establishments.

[Fat Guy]

How many volumes will this book be?

Asia is big, and there is a lot of history to deal with.

←

One short book, about 240 pages. Also, it's not a book about Asia or Asian cuisine. It's a book about getting the most out of Asian restaurants in North America. There won't be any recipes or elaborate histories (and what histories there are will mostly be about immigrant cultures in North America). A comparison of tofu across Asian restaurant types might be as simple as a chart -- you open up two facing pages and there's a comparison of what each type of restaurant calls tofu, and listings of some examples of how it's prepared, with brief descriptions. The point isn't to teach people how to cook the stuff or be experts about it; it's to help them order when they visit a restaurant.

[slkinsey]

"Authentic" has to do with the extent to which the food duplicates what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin.

I'm not so sure a pure geographic definition of authenticity makes sense, especially not when you're talking about cultures where not just a few people but millions are living in the diaspora.

When you have a diasporic people, you get diasporic cooking. I don't think anyone would (or could) argue that Italian-American cooking is "authentic Italian cooking." Rather, it is "authentic Italian-American cooking" or, if you like "authentic diasporic Italian (in America) cooking."

But assuming a geographic definition, to put it in context one has to note that today's Asia is incredibly modern and international.

There are people with names like Max Levy making things like sashimi with truffles in on Cape Cod, but that still doesn't make it "New England food." I think you still have to look at the culture of origin and see what the people there think. I think you would find that the sashimi with truffles prepared by Max Levy in Shanghai would not be considered "Shanghaiese food" by Shanghaiese people. However, over time, these things may change the tradition of what is considered "Shanghaiese cooking." That's a different story.

Clearly there comes a point where the disasporic food evolves in a direction so that it is not reasonably within that geography-based tradition. Take, for example, Cajun cooking. What is this? Well, if you boil it down to its bones, it's extremely old-fashioned French provincial cooking with too much chili pepper and some local ingredients. It is not "authentic French provincial cooking." And the fact is, of course, that French provincial cooking has moved on from where it was in the 17th century when the Acadians left France for the New World -- and that is the true "authentic French Provincial cooking." Now, it's possible -- if highly unlikely -- that a chili pepper craze could have swept through regional France at some time and produced "authentic French Provincial cooking" that is very similar to Cajun cooking. But it didn't and so that's that.

Edited June 18, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[Kouign Aman]

I second the motion to include rice in one of those side discussions.

Also eating utensils/methods (hand w flat bread, chopssticks, spoon, whathave you)

[Fat Guy]

Your definition of authentic was "what is currently being done in the cuisine's culture of origin." The example you gave was "If Thai people in Thailand are using ketchup, then it would be 'authentic' to do so in a restaurant here." So on top of that, are you now saying: "If Thai people in Thailand are using ketchup, then it would be 'authentic' to do so in a restaurant here, but only if Thai people in Thailand would consider it to be authentic Thai cuisine"? That seems like a pretty difficult definition to measure. What do we do if two Thai people disagree on that belief (indeed, there is disagreement among Thai people about exactly that)? Do we have a majority belief rule? A plurality belief rule? Decision by experts? Or do we go back to "A lot of people over there are using it, therefore it's authentic, period"? And if so, what does the definition accomplish? It seems a pretty empty concept: inauthentic becomes authentic so long as somebody in the country of origin is doing it.

The Italian model, moreover, is not the only model of a cuisine or cuisines. I actually would say that Italian-American cuisine is a regional Italian cuisine, with the region being America, however I understand that's a minority position. But I wouldn't presume to say the Italian region-based concept of authenticity is appropriate for China, or for France. Does a restaurant like Daniel in New York serve "authentic" French food? I'm not sure the question can even be asked -- French haute cuisine doesn't operate under that set of assumptions. It's much more of an anything-goes cuisine. There are French regional cuisines, but haute cuisine is much less attached to regions (or, rather, haute cuisine chefs have a lot of leeway: some are regional in orientation, others are international). There may be people in France saying that what Pierre Gagnaire serves isn't authentic, however just about every chef in France is going to tell you that Pierre Gagnaire is one of the undisputed leaders in French haute cuisine. And most of them will tell you that Daniel Boulud is serving French haute cuisine. Chinese cuisine, especially at the imperial level (as opposed to the regionally derived peasant cuisine), is much more like French haute cuisine than it is like Italian regional cuisine.

I don't really know what people in Shanghai would say about RBL or the dozens of other internationally influenced restaurants in Shanghai. They may not say they're Shanghainese, but they may very well say they're Chinese. Or they may say they're "New Shanghainese" or some equivalent concept that makes trying to measure authenticity pretty silly. One thing worth noting, though, is that in my experience Asian chefs tend not to obsess about authenticity the way American foodies do. The trend towards pan-Asian and global cuisine is quite strong in most every modern country in Asia.

[Pan]

[...]What about rice?[...]

←

The most important topic of all for most Asian cuisines. Somewhere, it needs to be explained that traditionally, the rice or noodles are the core of the meal, with other things being regarded as sauces or side dishes that are added to the rice or noodles. But in terms of specific rice "dishes":

Indian: Biryani

Chinese, Malaysian, etc.: Various types of fried rice

Korean: Bibimbap in its various guises

And we can and should add to this list. (I'm sure there's a topical thread somewhere.)

Breads also need to be mentioned. Most are flatbreads, sometimes stuffed, and they are more prevalent in Indian than other types of Asian cuisines commonly found in the U.S. It's uncommon to find Chinese flatbreads in American Chinese restaurants, but in Indian restaurants, the diner will likely be confronted with a choice between naan, paratha, roti, and various other types of North Indian breads, or in a South Indian restaurant, will have a choice of various types of Masala Dosai or Utthapams. And in Malaysian restaurants, Roti Canai and Roti Telur will be offered. I'll probably post some more ideas later.

[Edit:] OK, coming back to this post, an additional category of rice dishes is congee in its various guises.

Should there also be a discussion of how Chinese barbecued/roasted items such as Char Shu, Roast Duck, and Soy Sauce Chicken are different from Galbi and Bulgogi?

Edited June 18, 2007 by Pan (log)

[slkinsey]

"French haute cuisine" is a separate category unto itself. I don't believe it is appropriate to extend this concept to other kinds of cooking. Indeed, I would argue that much of what we think of as "French haute cuisine" is hardly French at all. And yes, I would argue that Daniel does not make "authentic French food" under this idea of "authentic." What's so French about this menu? Yuzu marinated tai snapper with shiso cream, shaved crudités and lemon balm oil is French? Daniel, and other haute cuisine restaurants, make "haute cuisine food," with "haute cuisine" being a restaurant concept that was born in France (where restaurant culture itself was born) but has for a long time not necessarily been tied to France, French culture or French people. It can be tied to France, French culture and French people, but it's not required.

I also think you're stretching the points I made to absurdity. There's a difference between someone in Thailand using ketchup in making a sauce for what is otherwise a straightforward Thai noodle dish (which is what I assume is happening) and someone in an American Thai restaurant making "Southern fried chicken pad thai." You gave an example of something that was clearly not within the broad culinary tradition of Thai cooking, so I clarified. Your example would be like saying: England has a lot of restaurants making cheap carry-out curry, therefore curry should be considered "authentic English food." Maybe some day 100 years from now, this will be true. But the fact is that, right now, English people do not consider curry to be within the broad tradition of English cooking. And that's the bar.

I also didn't say that everyone in Thailand had to consider the dish "authentic Thai cuisine" to use ketchup. First of all, this is not consistent with the usage of "authentic" as I have proposed if for this situation (it is more in line with my usage of "traditional"). But more to the point is the question as to how the ketchup is used, and whether it is incorporated into the food in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition. Of course there will be people in Thailand who argue for or against using it. But at some point there is a preponderance of usage of the ingredient by Thai people in a way that is more-or-less consistent with the Thai culinary tradition, and a Thai restaurant located outside of Thailand attempting to give customers an "authentic Thai cooking experience" (not the same as a "traditional Thai experience" or perhaps an "authentic traditional Thai experience) would want to include this ingredient usage. I mean, what ties Thai cooking together if not Thai culture and, well, Thailand?!

You're right that you're in the minority in considering Italian-American cooking to be a regional Italian cuisine with America being a region. Looking at it that way, the whole idea of what allows certain culinary traditions to hang together completely breaks down. There are any number of things in Italian-American cooking that are simply not recognizable to Italians as "Italian food." I'd say this idea fails on that basis alone. I also don't understand how you can make the argument that Italian-American cooking is a "regional Italian cuisine" and not use the same logic to argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"? Or would you argue that Cajun cooking is a "regional French cuisine"?

Edited June 18, 2007 by slkinsey (log)

[Kouign Aman]

Not only is rice a core, but the different countries prefer different styles of plain white rice. Indian rice is long grain, each grain separate. Chinese rice tends to stick together more (makes it easier to eat out of the bowl with chopsticks) etc. I know there's more to know than this!

Authentic. Oy.