Institutional Change in Cuisine Structure

[Carrot Top]

Hasn't every poor generation eaten badly yet in the 21st century we believe we can change this, surely nothing more than the amount of available money and price of produce really dictates what will survive the test of time.

←

The word "we" is the important one in this thought, though.

For is there a "we"?

Has there ever been a "we" in what "we" call "history"?

Available money is determined by a vast amount of factors, a chaos of factors.

Finally, though, it is defined by the "we" that does not exist.

It is perhaps defined more by the individual persons who are adept at accomplishing what they set out to do. These people who prove that they can "do" , and "do' well, sway and move other people to follow. And often, one of those people has a different agenda in mind than the others. So the available money goes to whomever happens to be best at gathering it in that moment. And even that affects how "history" is written. As for the future, it is important to remember that not everybody wishes the best upon everybody else. That means there is no "we".

Edited September 29, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[PassionateChefsDie]

Hasn't every poor generation eaten badly yet in the 21st century we believe we can change this, surely nothing more than the amount of available money and price of produce really dictates what will survive the test of time.

←

The word "we" is the important one in this thought, though.

For is there a "we"?

Has there ever been a "we" in what "we" call "history"?

Available money is determined by a vast amount of factors, a chaos of factors.

Finally, though, it is defined by the "we" that does not exist.

←

And as its our history is it really relavent? From reading that history has no place?

I thought it linked quite relavently to the flour example not sure what you did except pick on a word! History is only relavent to us, it has little more place than a story if we're honest whats your point?

Edited September 29, 2005 by PassionateChefsDie (log)

[Carrot Top]

And as its our history is it really relavent? From reading that history has no place?

I thought it linked quite relavently to the flour example not sure what you did except pick on a word! History is only relavent to us, it has little more place than a story if we're honest whats your point?

←

My point is a philosophic one. And the fact that "I" think of things in philosophic or global terms and that "you" think of things in factual actual what someone presented as an actual history in a book, separates the way we see things right there.

Your history is not my history. Yet you and I come from Western cultures.

The history and viewpoint of two people from two cultures that are even more disparate than ours would be even wider.

History is not a fact.

History is written. By human beings. Human beings who can only know what is in front of them within their own culture or the cultures they have been exposed to.

Then of course each historian brings their own "stuff" into the writing of history.

History, even among historians, is up for debate. It is not agreed upon.

I am not "picking" on a word in any way except to define it in the way I see it, and as a word that said a lot within the context of the discussion.

Here's a question: Here "we" are, talking with each other in a "virtual community".

Here you and I are, and many others.

If each of us was to walk away from the computer at this moment, then sit down and write the "history" of even this singular, small discussion, would we come up with the same account of it?

"History" has proved otherwise. We all see things differently.

Therefore, "truth" is plastic. Except when it is a lie or utter bull. Those are somewhat measurable.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[Carrot Top]

To bring this back to the point it must be said that there are "trends" that can be found by people who have a talent for spotting them, within their lifetimes based on what they see and sometimes feel.

To my mind, some of this is intuitive. Some people have an eye for the small and unnoticed thing that ties into other things that other people see.

This can be used to create opportunities for businesses to thrive within any given period of time. Even food businesses, to bring it back to the point again.

But beyond using this ability within a certain narrowly defined parameter to accomplish a certain defined task, it's not my opinion that it can be done "across-the-board".

But I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Edited to add: Yeah. I just went back and read your original question, Lucy.

Somehow the discussion went off track. My apologies for any part I played in it.

I really had no idea at all how to answer your first post, so didn't. But the other stuff came up and as it was in the thread, blah blah blah. I talked.

What I should have said was: "Just who is this 'we', Kimosabe?" and left it at that.

Edited September 29, 2005 by Carrot Top (log)

[chefzadi]

The 60's were volatile in France. You can't look at the changing role/identity of a chef in relation to old institutions in a historical vacuum of just food history and not relate it to other events that were shaping France and her notions of pluralism and what is it is to be French. Maybe my link is shocking and seems out of place. France lost it's colonies, there was a huge wave of post colonial immigration and a cultural identity crisis.... The institutionalized meanings of being French was being questioned and challenged on all levels.