I enjoy Chang's stance against culinary orthodoxy, even if I don't always agree with it. He equates it with rigidity, and there is some truth to that, when you have some self-styled institute in Naples deciding what is and is not pizza, or things like those ultra-stuffy French contests. But there is value in keeping traditions and maintaining the purity, if you will, of certain foods just because they're really good. You can also still have fusions and crossover, but not everyone has to be busting through the old way to be appreciated. There is something deeply satisfying about, say, a traditional shrimp etouffe or cheese blintz or Peking duck.
I do not at all understand the complaints about it being too political. The history of different foods is to some extent the story of the cultures who make that food. And sometimes those cultures clash. I found it fascinating that he was riding around on the white guys' boats when the Vietnamese shrimpers started working in the Gulf coast. I'm guessing most of the complaints about it being political came from white people, because they get nervous talking about race. But when you're talking to Asians who came to the US, part of the experience that forms the food they serve is how they were received in the US, and how subsequent generations view the situation. For an Asian-American, race is always a thing. He's dealing with his and others' reality. Food is deeply ethnic.
One last thing: I love the music choices. Very cool.
