Adrian

What I am saying is that if you do a search the restaurant does get a fair bit of coverage, especially for a rural restaurant. Outside of the documentary, a quick google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=inn+at+little+washington+reviews&rlz=1C1GGRV_enCA769CA769&oq=inn+at+little+washington+review&aqs=chrome.0.0j46j0j69i57j0l3.15393j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) shows that in the last three years it's been reviewed by Eater, Washington Post, and Forbes, plus articles in Washingtonian and WSJ on the first page of hits. Site specific hits yield a fair bit more coverage in

Not to be a pedant, but why do you say that? They just got 3 Michelin stars and the attendant press, there was a documentary released last year, and quick website scan of eater, Washintonian and WaPo reveals plenty of recent mentions (including a new rave review by Sietsema). Lots of coverage over their COVID response. If anything, it's probably more prominent now than it has been in years. It's not going to get "hot new restaurant" press, but it's not a hot new restaurant.

Other than the documentary? It gets lots of local, regional attention, but, nationally, it does not. Poke around Eater DC and the Washingtonian and WaPo. Pugnacious me would say it's the kind of restaurant that people here say they want but don't actually patronize. More fairly, it's probably not a restaurant that should get a lot of national attention. It's "interesting" as historical artifact, it excellent in its style, it's got a full dining room bolstered by three Michelin stars, but in what way should it command national attention beyond the occasional appreciation? I

Yes man, I was agreeing with you and adding on.

Inn at Little Washington current menu: https://theinnatlittlewashington.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/IALW_Sample_Dinner_Menu_20237.pdf I don't think it's ever been "traditional" low country cooking, but he's sort of the master of traditional American haute cuisine, which is a lot of European and mixture of some American traditions, as you said. He's not making "hoppin' johns" an acceptable bistro dish. It's a different thing. What Brock did is that he made those vernacular dishes acceptable for dressed up people in good bistros and fancy spaces. Which also put some of those trad places

There are a couple distinctive strains of restaurant cooking as I argued a few pages back. Related and unrelated, there is also a PBS-NPR-Alice Walters-Farmer's Market-New American strain that is absolutely it's own kind of cuisine. Part of what Brock did was that he married "exotic" low country cooking with this familiar bourgeois American aesthetic. Or as Sneak says, he "Brooklynized" it.

I don't think so. But, also, it has to start somewhere. Also, I think this comes of of an article on Brock (maybe the New Yorker one), there is a history of products like Kentucky hams being widely known and well regarded internationally in the 19th century that faded in the 20th. There are a lot of politics (both class and race) circling this discussion, of course.

This is not "politics" as I have always interpreted the rule. People are discussing a general (apolitical) principle: the extent to which the personal politics of a business owner should influence your decision to patronize a business. This has nothing to do with the poster's political persuasion.

I mean yes, but that wasn't the point of the ultimately hypothetical analogy.

Yes, I agree with this. But a principled objection to both on cultural grounds is possible. As is a principled objection to one over the other on aesthetic grounds. Sutton confuses the latter for the former.

I am not so sure about that. (It's boycotting Haydn performances in 1765)

Yes but we don't have a time machine to dine in the antebellum south and object. So people object to restsaurants that celebrate what is objectionable now. There are people here who boycott Keller and Jean Georges. I understand why and I understand why some may find TAK unsavory.

Yes but if the restaurant was celebrating the political institution of slavery then the restaurant is a bit gross. No one is objecting to Horcher.

I raise you one broken record but I find this critique a bit unfair. First, there are deeply embedded American foodways, but not in New York, and often they are non-white. Also, to restate my critique, is that there always seemed to be a resistance here to trying to develop this culture. The post-Savoy/Chez Panisses/Blue Hill/NBC style of New American cooking created this kind of bistro - predictable in style an menu (oysters, salads, charcuterie, pork, chicken), that was highly seasonal in nature and, best of all, not-significant or interesting. There was a lot of hostility to this kind of re