The Culture Behind the Consumption

The links between the consumer and the growers/producers/corporations that own the profit of those products has been interesting and somewhat important for me for some time now. I stopped eating non-fish meat about 4 or 5 years ago and in the process became more conscious about where my food came from and/or came to more conscious eating habits of what i put into my body. Many recipes or diet tips i pick up come from vegan friends, bloggers, articles, etc. and one vegan blogger who i discovered not too long after becoming health conscious was Sistah Vegan. She was the first person i'd read who spoke about health conscious diets and lifestyles in general, but also criticized the ways in which many other vegans focus almost solely on not eating meat and meat products, while they may still be eating food that is not completely "cruelty-free". Many veg*ns have come to think that "cruelty-free" means that non-human animals have not been harmed in their meal. Sistah Vegan, on the other hand, posits the term from a more holistic perspective that looks at, for example, tomatoes that are farmed and grown by migrant worker, some of which are undocumented, who are paid literally pennies and have to endure harsh and physically dangerous situations (some are beaten and chained at night to keep them from running off the farm while many women have been raped and sexually assaulted) as something that would not fit under the category of "cruelty-free". Yes, they are vegan, but they are not cruelty-free in that those that do the physical labor endure various types of cruelty. it brought to mind this photo I have seen on the internet:

And since this re-evaluation of terms and connections and consumerism, I've been much more conscious about what i eat, where it comes from and by at least thinking about the amount of labor that goes into this food product. Quinoa is another food that veg*ns love (myself included) that has a sketchy production situation. Some have brought to the limelight the fact that quinoa, grown mainly in Bolivia and a traditional meal for those in that area, is not mainly eaten by veg*n westerners and has become involved in an industry to the point at which local Bolivians cannot afford the grain.

Something else i found important of note is the reason why sugar became (and is) such an important part of the English diet. Many a times, I think, some like to reason that colonialism and slavery happened mainly due to market; to consumption and the basic necessities of life that fueled situations like what was seen in the Caribbean with sugar cane. However, I think that idea removes the importance of culture from the picture. Even if poor, one still has cultural ideas and ideals to at least attempt to emulate. I may be pushing this because my area of study is cultural anthropology, but culture is what drives certain crops at certain points in time which certain groups of people (or classes). I think Mintz makes that point on page 122:

"Two somewhat different processes were occurring as these uses became more or less standard, both of them aspects of what, for lack of a better term, may be called "ritualization" - the incorporation and symbolic reinvestment of new materials. (Because ritual has to do with regularity and with a sense of fitness, rightness, and validation, its meaning here is not confined to so-called religious behavior.) One such aspect may be called "extensification": larger numbers of persons becoming familiar with sugar on a regular, perhaps even daily, basis. The regular consumption of sugar, particularly of cheap brown or treacle, even in modest quantities gradually reduced sugar's status as a glamorous luxury and a precious good. As a sweetener of tea, coffee, chocolate, and alcoholic drinks, and as an ingredient of bakery and fruit desserts, sugar acquired a more down-to-earth character in the eighteenth century."

Here, Mintz is saying that sugar became a part of the culture. And once something becomes habitual in such a way, the consumption of it becomes a mainstay and probably even less people would wonder where it came from, who grew it, and who profits from it. The same can be said with tea as a whole and the association it has as a quintessential English thing to do - the tea, the sweetener, and probably even the porcelain tea cup and saucer all coming from other parts of the world, yet still seen as English as apple pie is seen as American.

Also something that this idea of sugar has brought to my mind is the association of sugar with decadency. I recently did project on the relationship between Africans and African-Americans and as part of it I interviewed Africans and African-Americans asking them different ideas about one another. Two people in interviewed were my 6 year old niece and my 9 year old nephew. Something i recall them saying when i asked their thoughts on Africa was that they didn't think they had cupcakes in Africa. I've had other exchanges with them where they're surprised to know that Africans eat anything sweet. They think that all Africans chase their food down with clubs and eat it almost raw; the idea of them eating something sweet, something that takes time to cook (because they have no idea sugar comes from a plant - it's just the white stuff at the store) that isn't just raw in nature just doesn't blend well with their (obviously problematic) ideas of Africa.
Even more so (and maybe on another note), i find it ironic that sugar was first associated with decadence and luxury. Whereas at the present time in American culture, the luxury is eating fresh, healthy food and less high caloric cheap sugary drinks and foods.