People laud food as “authentic”. I do not.

To clarify, I do not condemn “authentic” foods; I just don't consider “authenticity” a merit in itself.

Of course, we can point out the fraught boundaries of “authenticity”. However, let's just assume we have a pretty-shared notion of “authenticity”.

Whatever merits lie behind authenticity we can consider over authenticity. For example, we may seek authentic foods to support the people who make them. We may also avoid inauthentic foods to express our distaste for one particular group taking from another. Then the merit lies in supporting those people, and the de-merit lies in that group taking from the other.

Why not just use authenticity as a shorthand, then? Well, I highlighted before that “food reflects the realities and eccentricities of our lives”. We make food under the limits of accessibility and capability. As the long arc of history bends toward increasing accessibility and capability, we have the power to make wonderful inauthentic foods.

Long live the cronut.