#coloniaism

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The basic political unit among the Igbo is the village. Two types of political systems have been distinguished among the Igbo on both sides of the Niger River: the democratic village republic type, found among the Igbo living to the east of the Niger River, and the constitutional monarchy type, found among Igbo in Delta State and the riverine towns of Onitsha and Ossomali. Most of the villages or towns that have the latter type of political system have two ruling monarchs—one female and one male. The obi (male monarch) is theoretically the father of the whole community, and the omu (female monarch) is theoretically the mother of the whole community; the duties of the latter, however, center mainly around the female side of the community.

Women engage in village politics (i.e., manage their affairs, separately from the men). They do this by establishing their own political organizations, which come under an overall village or town Women's Council under the leadership of seasoned matriarchs. It was this organizational system that enabled Igbo women and Ibibio women to wage an anticolonial struggle against the British in 1929 known as the Women's War (Ogu Umunwayi).

1) It's terribly ableist. In this society, we rank "intelligence" usually on how neurotypical someone is, how unaffected they are by mental health issues, as well as learning differences. This is highly problematic.

2) It's incredibly classist. The Western world tends to view wealthy, middle-class, Eaton educated people as "intelligent" and the rest of the working class as, well, basically as not.

3) Possibly the worst reason - it has roots in colonialism and racism. Unfortunately, the racist and colonialist myths that people of colour are somehow naturally "less intelligent" than white people is still perpetuated, especially towards working class people of colour. If this isn't a good enough reason to reject the term, I'm not sure what is.

If you're looking for an orientation label that is irrespective, or less focussed on gender, I suggest looking into bisexuality, polysexuality, pansexuality or omnisexuality. Don't rank people based on "intelligence", it's sh*tty.

Written by: Faith Kadoshima // Edited by: Chhy Chhy Yeak

Humans have a unique relationship to food that other beings do not possess. Food plays an emotional role in addition to the sole purpose of survival. Food is comfort. Food is celebration. Food is therapy. Whether it’s the smell of chocolate chip cookies or banana bread, my mother’s cooking evokes feelings of nostalgia and a sense of home. No matter the season, food provides the opportunity to connect with others. 

Food is deeply rooted in universal experiences, yet it can be divisive. Food is ingrained in cultural identity, unfortunately justifying divisions in cultural beliefs and expectations. In the past, peoples in the West viewed people in foreign cultures as cannibals, a symbol of evil in ancient times. This accusation contributed to the belief of Western superiority and the justification of the civilized reforming the uncivilized (Barilla Center for Food Nutrition [BCFN], n.d.). Although the historical context of food is an extreme example, barriers stemming from cultural variation in cuisine still persist today. Food is a paradox: a symbolic celebration of diverse cultures yet has the subtle capacity for the ostracization of “foreign” peoples. 

Despite the negative impacts of alienation in certain groups, food offers an opportunity to learn about other cultures and their history. Preparation and the cuisine itself is heavily influenced by social practices, lifestyle, and historical significance of that particular culture. “Table manners” are important aspects of Western society, thus recognizing food-related etiquette provides knowledge of cultural customs and practices (Sibal, 2018). Historical influences on the cultural evolution of cuisine and fusions of cultures are also pertinent today. Here are a few examples I found interesting:

1. In the 20th century, the Japanese military avoided regional differences of cuisine to promote national unity. The dietary norms of the Japanese military adopted European dishes to promote the soldiers’ stamina. Urbanization and Western influences heavily contributed to the “gentrification” of regional cuisine, and many traditional foods today are recent introductions of Japanese diet. (Association for Asian Studies [AAS], 2020). Despite modern interpretations of Japanese cuisine, tradition still plays an important role in preparation and dining. Japanese food is referred to as Washoku, reflecting a deep sense of respect for nature and emphasis on using local ingredients, such as fish and rice (Lush, 2020). The level of respect and detail in the preparation and presentation of dishes also reflects the traditional social values of modern Japan. 

2.  The Mediterranean diet is another example of cultural integration and social values reflected in cuisine, in which dining is perceived as a social ritual. Food waste is avoided by preparing small dishes and emphasizing sharing, such as the popular “tapas culture”. Gathering food also has an important role in society, since markets bring people together and helps support local businesses (Lush, 2020).

3. The African diaspora in America divided Black individuals from their families and their culture. During the Black Power Movement of the 20th century, “soul food” was coined as an umbrella term for Black people’s home cooking. Soul food helped unite Black people with their community as well as their cultural heritage. Adrian Miller, a food scholar, noted that the Southern values associated with food, such as hospitality, are directly rooted in Africa. However, the common misconception of “White” and “Southern” as interchangeable creates a division of Southern cuisine and soul food, as well as erasing Black identities and contributing to harmful stigmas regarding racial biases of food (Terr, 2020).

It is uncommon for modern food to have a singular cultural origin; almost all dishes and practices are hybrids from cross-cultural influences. Cuisine is tied to the past, yet cuisine is also an opportunity for innovation. The blending of ideas has created discussions about the cultural appropriation of food. There are different definitions of the cultural appropriation of food, ranging from trendy “sushi burritos” to a person or business of a non-marginalized group appropriating a different culture for profit. For example, two White American women opened a Mexican food cart in Portland in which their menu used recipes from people while on a trip to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico. The owners were accused of cultural appropriation and stealing recipes, thus subsequently shutting down their business (Albala, 2019). Debates surrounding cultural appropriation have led to certain questions:

1.) Where is the line between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation of food?

2.) How does one define the authenticity of food?

3.) Are businesses responsible for preventing cultural appropriation or is consumer behavior the root of the problem?

Cultural appropriation of food is not a means for only one cultural group to create dishes of that particular culture. However, cultural appropriation opens conservations in acknowledging negative connotations of assimilation. 

Cuisine honors tradition and cultural heritage. Each generation has an appreciation of a favorite family recipe that has been handed down through the years. Many immigrants experience a loss of culture, yet food is often the only cultural aspect that is transported with them and an important means to connect with one’s own heritage. Similar to many other experiences of Asian-Americans, I have felt removed from my culture since my grandparents immigrated from the Philippines. My inability to speak Tagalog has hindered my communication and development of relationships within my own community. However, feelings of detachment disappear once I mention lumpia, pancit, or halo halo. Food is the initial step of coming into contact with both different and familiar cultures, “given that eating the food of others seems easier...than decodifying their language” (BCFN, n.d.). Food touches us all in different ways but also reaches out as a universal language. May the next cuisine serve up a platter of conversation, culture, and community. 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Albala, K. (2019, February 15). Food “columbusing” and the debate over cultural 

appropriation. The Great Courses Daily.   https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/food-columbusing/

Almerico, G. (2014). Food and identity: Food studies, cultural and personal identity. Journal of 

International Business and Cultural Studies., 8, 1. 

Association for Asian Studies. (2020, August 26). Cuisine and identity in contemporary Japan.

https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/cuisine-and-identity-in-contemporary-japan/

Barilla Center for Food Nutrition. (n.d.) The cultural dimension of food. The BCFN Foundation. 

https://www.barillacfn.com/m/publications/pp-cultural-dimension-of-food.pdf

Lush, E. (2020, December 31). 23 Amazing culinary traditions around the world. Wander-Lush. 

https://wander-lush.org/food-culture-unesco/

Sibal, V. (2018, September). Food: Identity of culture and religion. ResearchGate. 

https://www.wathi.org/food-identity-of-culture-and-religion-researchgate/#:~:text=Food%20is%20often%20used%20as,cultural%20backgrounds%20eat%20different%20foods.&text=These%20food%20preferences%20result%20in,important%20parts%20of%20religious%20ceremonies

The role of food in human culture. (2017, July 1). Global Gastros. Retrieved February 6, 2021, 

So I went to go see the new Jungle Book today.

It was good. It was really, really, good. (Keeping in mind this is all coming from someone who has, at best, a tolerance of the animated Disney film)

The performances were miles above what I was expecting: Ben Kingsley slayed as Baghera; Idris Elba knocked it out of the park as Shere Kahn; Lupita Nyong’o was freakin’ incredible as Raksha.

The tone struck a perfect note between serious and light-hearted (I literally cried at a moment during the climax, but also laughed often).

And (of course) the visuals are probably the best ever crafted for a film and it’s very, very easy to forget that the only real thing on screen is Mowgli.

Having said all of that; I have... issues. One major gripe in particular.

You’re probably smart and you read that title up above.

There’s no getting away from it, the original Jungle Book is incredibly, intrinsically wound up in Rudyard Kipling’s thoughts and views on colonialism (and they definitely aren’t pretty). I knew that going into the theatre, but I had hope that Jon Faverau and company would understand that and address it.

Having seen the film... I now really hope that (somehow) everyone involved in the film had no idea about any of those undertones because otherwise it comes across even worse.

BEWARE: FOR AFTER HERE COME SPOILERS

The pervasive problem is that Mowgli is a master of tools, but (for the most part) actually this isn’t ruinous. Things are at least reasonable for a young human child I guess. Stone knives and vine-ropes. A gourd for drinking.

The biggest problem here is the ridiculously complex contraption that he constructs to knock down the bee hives down. Leaf armor? A belaying system anchored by Baloo? This is stuff far beyond what Mowgli should be expected (in even the most fantastical of settings) to create being as young as he is and after being raised outside of human society. The rationale behind it seems to just be to hammer home the idea that Mowgli’s a man-cub, and thus is naturally good with tools (you see where that colonial attitude comes across?)

Whatever, though. It’s a single moment, I could look past that, I guess.

Then later on Mowgli goes and grabs the fire and accidentally starts a forest fire. I actually liked this a bit. It shows the peril of trying to impose culture I thought. But then, how does Shere Kahn get defeated? By falling the fuck into the fire that Mowgli started! After he made the huge show of tossing the torch away, and they try to play off Mowgli’s success as (again) his natural inborn tool affinity. But it was his stupid-ass clumsiness that saved the day! Yay for bumbling the fuck around and (at least the way I was reading it) completely screwing up the local culture.

Okay, that bothered me, but (despite what my previous tone might suggest) I wasn’t pissed at the movie yet. No, I had to wait a couple of minutes for that yet. I had a second before it happened. The way the camera was focused though, gave me a inkling No I thought don’t. Please don’t.  

But they did, and I nearly swore in the theatre. 

The elephants. The Gods of the Jungle. The deities that all other jungle beasts worship and pay homage to. They’re great (their introduction is amazing even). And how to they enter this scene? With Mowgli fucking riding on one’s back. Here comes Man, master of the elephants. Subjugator of the local gods.

Fuck that.

I struggle now. Because I truly feel that The Jungle Book is a masterpiece of cinema and I think everyone who loves film should watch it, but... my god it’s flawed almost at its very core. 

There are other films that I love even though the themes rub me the wrong way (The Dark Knight comes to mind), but I feel that this aspect is so insidious and subtle and.... complete ass-backwards outdated that I don’t think I can really classify it the same.