Leave it to liberals to find racism in literally everything — even food. In an article posted Wednesday at the Washington Post, Caitlin Dewey, a food policy writer for Wonkblog, essentially argued that the food we eat is racist.
Red Alert Politics wrote:
Caitlin Dewey of the The Washington Post interviewed author Sarah Lohman on Wednesday to discuss her book that chronicles America’s obsession with vanilla, Sriracha, black pepper, curry powder, chili powder, MSG, garlic and soy sauce. Each contributed to the journey of racism in the country.
That’s an entirely reasonable connection. Everyone who eats a chili dog can’t help but connect to white privilege.
America’s alleged racism comes from their decision on which country they allowed to influence their diet.
For instance, Chinese immigrants used soy in many of their ingredients, but it wasn’t until the Japanese opened up a plant in the U.S. that it became popular in the 1970s. Despite the fact that millions of Italian immigrants used it for more than half a century, garlic became popular when Julia Child began using it in most of her French-inspired food in the 1960s and 70s.
What’s Lohman’s only conclusion for this? Racism of course.
Lohman also said that Americans “…tend to have a sense of amnesia — a two-generation amnesia, where we will not remember or believe that the sort of xenophobia directed at Muslims right now was also directed at our grandparents or great-grandparents who were Catholic or Jewish or Chinese. Racism is on repeat because we keep refusing to acknowledge them in American history.”
Dewey followed up with this question: “There’s a cycle you identify in the book: frequently, Americans accept and embrace immigrant foods long before they accept the immigrants, themselves. There’s this incredible anecdote in your book about Ranji Smile, whom you argue was America’s first celebrity chef — he was denied citizenship at a time when it was extremely difficult to become naturalized as an Indian or Southeast Asian. I wonder what that says about American culture: that we take the flavor but reject the person bringing it.”
To me, that speaks to something that is more culturally acceptable about food in America than language or even religion. Look at the flipside: Food also lasts longer than any other aspect of immigrant culture. If you’re talking about someone who’s third- or fourth-generation American, they probably don’t speak the same language of their ancestors, they definitely don’t wear the same clothes, and they might not even worship the same religion anymore. But they probably make foods connected to their ethnic heritage, especially around Thanksgiving and Christmas and Hanukkah.
One one side, Americans retain the connection to their immigrant food more than anything else; on the other, Americans accept new food before we accept new immigrants. A hundred years ago, that meant targeting Judaism. Now we’re targeting Islam as un-American. But we’ll go to the grocery store and eat hummus, and we can go to the food truck and get falafel or kebab. And even the flavors, like rosewater and cardamom and zaatar, are becoming a bigger part of American cooking.
Ryan Girdusky noted:
The free market drove acceptance slightly ethnic food long, not the slow death of racism against people from Southern Europe.
It’s possible that a book doesn’t sell, though, it might be that a writer needs to talk about the evils of white patriarchal men to get a good book deal.
Let’s hope not…
- The insanity continues: Now trees in national parks are racist
- Racism? Pelosi, Takei, liberal hate machine freaks out over choice of Ben Carson as HUD Secretary
- Gorilla shot: Angry blacks claim white privilege, turns out the boy is black
- SPLC spokesman to CNN: ‘Drain the swamp’ phrase racist
- Florida prof. penalizes students for using term ‘melting pot,’ claims racism
And if you’re as concerned about Facebook censorship as we are, go here and order this new book: