I recently read an article that discussed the "authenticity" of American-Chinese cooking. It truly annoyed me. If, I a Canadian, goes to Beijing and with a Chinese friend's help cook a dish for us, is in somehow not authentic because I am not Chinese? I use this weird example because the central point was that orange-chicken and chop suey are not authentic as they are not prepared in Chinese homes usually. Both those dishes were made in America and Canada by Chinese workers who came here in the C19th to work on the railroads. These were "adapted" dishes due to the lack of available ingredients.
When those Chinese workers were laid off after the railroads were completed. Many remained and some started restaurants which featured these dishes; and have done so for over a century. They can also be found in the Chinese restaurants in London where I grew up. (As well as in other countries I have visited; All prepared by Chinese cooks.)
The argument for authenticity is ridiculously warped when we examine "Indian" cooking. The majority of Indian restaurants in Britain, and lots in Canada, are run by Bangladeshis, not Indians at all. The food is just what we ate in Indian. The most popular curry in Britain is Chicken Tikka Masala. This curry was "invented" in London by an Indian immigrant and copied by just about everyone else. It is featured in every cookbook on Indian cooking, printed in English, these days.
By the definitions of the article on authenticity it isn't an Indian dish, though.
Do not get me started on Italian pasta...
No comments:
Post a Comment