What I took from Heldke's chapter on "Eating in Context," is that using authenticity strategiacally has flaws. Heldke describes strategic authenticity as insiders of a culture appeal to the authenticity of their food and its controls's access to their culture by being able to claim thata cuisine is being misappropriated. Strategic suthenticity also calls for outsiders to respect and understand such claims so as to anticolonize the authenticity factor in food. Heldke also describes several of the traps to strategic authenticity faced by outsiders, including that all claims to authenticity by insiders be observed solely because they are insiders, regardless of their knowledge. Another dilemma is that there is not always a clear line to establish who is an insider and outsider, therefore having the authority to establish authenticity. The final trap Heldke mentions is the idea that certain cuisins have specific elements that must remain unchanged. In conclusion, the pitfalls of strategic authenticity can again lead to a silence of the colonized cultures which further divides Us and Them. Heldke reaffirms that their is a need, however, for authenticity because "there is tremendous power in marginalized people claiming the right to say, 'No.'"
Ashwak and I were in a history of Germany class together that emphasized the role of women in the public sphere around the first and second world wars, and since I wrote my final research paper on women in Germany from 1700 to WW2, I thought that I knew a lot about opinions on the matter, but Ashwak's article is really interesting because of the different views that it expresses and explains on the theories of Rosie the Riveter and women working in 'men only' jobs at the time. I have always found it fascinating how a culture can be ok with women doing a job only when it seems necessary, and completely condemn it as soon as the necessity disipates.
Juan's article on the penguin was a funny story, but the first part especially made me realize how little I really know on this topic. This article referenced so many places and people and events that I couldn't place contextually in any history in my brain, it made me feel not a little ashamed! I am really looking forward to Juan's presentation so that maybe I can contextualize this issue better in my brain.
I have to admit that towards the middle of Lara's article I started to scan. It was a lot of lawyer jargon, but the story of the intense racial and class discrimination that took place (oops.. and still does!) is really disgusting!! It is really interesting to me how the white community sued, saying that the plan for development in their area was a form of racial discrimination. Also, how the non-racial destruction was so well put, as if the fact of their being mixed races is a form of societal destruction in itself is so telling of the mentality of the people writing these laws and heading these boards and committees. Really, class and racial discrimination on this grand of a scale is utterly depressing.