Month: April 2023

By: Samuel Loyack

The structure and status of the United States today can be seen in many modes as a continued progression of colonial ideas and practices. One particular mode this can be examined through is of the immigration policies and stances the US has held and enacted throughout its history. A recent case this can be associated with is the Trump administration’s installment of a travel ban upon seven countries in 2017, and of the same administration’s proposition of constructing a border wall between the US and Mexico. In this essay, these cases are examined and critically analyzed through a postcolonial lens. Through this analysis, these cases become exemplary of the legacy of colonial ideas within US history. Parallels can be realized between the fundamental ideas that guided this administration’s policies and of the previous policies held by the US, and to ideologies stemming from colonial era Europe as well. The dynamic that exists within US immigration policies, the fundamental that guide them, and the technologies that uphold them are recursive in nature. This nature can be observed from the policies of recent administrations to the major policies enacted in the past. In drawing these connections to past cases such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, this recent case can be analyzed through postcolonial ideas of recursion, continuity and technologies of rule to identify this as a case of past colonialism existing in the current postcolonial US.

            One of the first policies former president Donald Trump signed into effect during his tenure, was an executive order that effectively banned travel to the US from seven countries for ninety days. Referred to as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” executive order 13769, was signed as an act that would prohibit entry into the US from countries that displayed a threat to the US government and citizens. This executive order was also followed by a series of orders and proclamations that served to revise the initial act, as well as to put in place extra measures that restricted travel, increased vetting, and set in place additional guidelines that further restricted visa applications. The policies that followed the initial executive order were placed upon sixteen countries, including the seven initially cited in the original order (Trump 2017: 3).

            Following the enactment, the travel bans and additional measures set in place became subject to considerable criticism. The countries cited in the original act included Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. These countries were selected due to various reasons, including lack of compliance, insufficient documentation of emigration, and previous presence of terrorism (Gerstein et al. 2018: 1). Ultimately, this travel ban labeled immigrants from these countries as potentially threatening to the US. Interestingly, the Department of Homeland Security reported a total of 47 countries as posing a risk, as measured using the same factors used to select the countries effected by the travel ban (Trump 2017: 3). These guidelines and the specific peoples they effected would prove problematic in nature, as this suggests that the order subjectively selected countries for application of these new standards. Equally interesting, all of the effected countries were predominantly Muslim countries, further suggesting an element of discrimination on the basis of religion (Panduranga et al.: 1). In summary, this order served as yet another example of the US government imposing discriminatory restrictions upon the movements of people.

Another example in the history of US immigration policies this may be comparable to is the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. This act is noted as being one of the first laws in the US to restrict immigration into the US on the basis of race. Similar to the Trump travel ban, this act served to restrict the immigration of Chinese migrants into the US for ten years. Additionally, this act was followed by multiple other policies that served to either revise or increase the restrictions and guidelines of the original law. These laws specifically hindering the immigration of Chinese peoples were not revoked until the 1940’s. Furthermore, while this act was not imposed to address foreign threats to the US that the Trump travel ban was designed to confront, it was founded upon a similar discriminatory foundation. The Chinese Exclusion Acts were enacted as a solution to economic competition, but were also largely influenced by the racist ideology of this period. Ratification of the act ultimately served to reinforce and amplify this racist ideology (Unite States Department of State: 1). The discriminatory foundation of both immigration policies enacted by the US can be attributed to the colonial ideas and practices that preceded this era, and serves as a prominent example of the recursivity of the colonial past, and the continued utilization of differences in the US today.

Examination of this case requires observation through a postcolonial lens, in which the structure and dynamic of the postcolonial world today is critically assessed as a reflection of colonialisms legacy. Through this lens, elements of the contemporary world can be understood as a consequence of colonialism, as the cultural, political, and economic status of the colonizing and colonized nations can be reviewed following each nation’s respective standing in the colonial era.

In the domain of postcolonial theory, anthropologist Ann Stoler refers to the idea of recursion as a means to analyze the colonial legacies. Stoler’s idea of recursion explores how colonial ideas continue to be experienced in new forms indicating no distinct finality to certain elements recognized in the colonial past. Stoler ultimately identifies this recursivity as “histories that fold back on themselves and, in that refolding, reveal new surfaces, and new planes” (Stoler 2016: 26).

In the case of the travel bans signed by Trump in 2017, the dynamic of implementing strict new immigration standards upon certain groups of people further elaborates the recursion of establishing differences for the sake of control. In this instance, control is being issued upon the movements of people. The use of difference as a means for cultivating control stems from the idea of colonial difference, an idea that is recognized by anthropologist Partha Chatterjee as essential to colonial governance (Chatterjee 1994: 32). Used for justifying colonial practices and establishing colonial governance, European colonialism developed distinctions between the colonizers and the colonized. These distinctions would evolve to encompass the separation and discriminations of people’s today, particularly in the US.

Through this lens, this case becomes exemplary of the recursivity of colonial history. Similar to colonial practices, the travel ban assigns these restrictions to a particular region through discriminatory measures. These measures are reflective of the colonial practices of the past, effectively establishing distinctions between groups to assert the notion that certain groups are not fit for specific liberties. The discriminatory aspects of this recent case present this parallel, however it also exhibits elements that differentiate this case from other comparisons to the past. With this modern travel ban, the establishment of these subjective immigration guidelines is founded to address alleged issues that are more relevant to the contemporary state of the US. Set in place to counter the threat of terrorism, this applies new standards to immigration into the US that reflect colonial ideas. Ultimately, the orders initiating the travel ban pose a case of the recursivity of colonial difference in US history. This dynamic is founded upon past principles of control through difference, while enacting these principles through a different mode of discrimination under a more novel purpose. Thus, this executive action presents a modern case of US histories refolding in the present in new forms.

Further examination of these executive orders and of other immigration legislation championed by Trump, reveals additional colonial continuities that have evolved and been imposed in the postcolonial US. The continuities can be observed in the development of walls and the use of quotas to govern colonial spaces. These processes can be recognized as colonial technologies of rule with roots that can be traced back to the colonial era and have persisted into the postcolonial.

Essential to the development of colonial authority and governance, colonial technologies of rule encompassed the variety of systems designed and implemented to control colonized people and spaces. These systems of control often resulted in establishing a hierarchy of difference between the colonial powers and the colonized that served to benefit the interests of the colonizers politically and economically. Both the construction of walls and borders, and the implementation of quota systems in the colonial era have served as colonial technologies of control for the purpose of regulating the movement of individuals in colonial territories.

The use of quotas as a tool for regulating the colonized can be seen in various instances of the colonial past. This technology served several interests of the colonial powers while exploiting and upholding their authority over the colonized. Economically, quotas were used to extract and regulate the economic potential of imports and exports of the colony (Colonial Tariffs and Quotas 2008: 97). Quotas were also used to maintain and govern the local populations. This system would manage the population movement within and emigration out of the colony. Utilization of this technology for both interests could be witnessed in West African colonies of Gambia and Nigeria. Implementation of quotas through this purpose can be observed within modern-day US immigration policy and within US policies that preceded it.

As discussed earlier, the Executive Order initiating the travel ban was followed and edited by a series of additional orders and proclamations. The acts that followed adjusted the original list of countries under the effect of the order. Nine of these eleven countries effected were predominantly Muslim. The revisions also included new measures that increased the vetting process and suspended certain visa applications from the countries cited (Trump 2017: 1). The effects to visa applications entailed the immediate suspension upon immigrant applications of those applying as family members to previous visa recipients. This change to the application process provides a glimpse at the differential treatment exercised upon certain groups within a process established as a non-discriminatory quota system. This system processes applicants on the basis of familial ties, value to the US workforce, and for refugee status. These guidelines effectively categorize the applicants, and each category is granted a percentage of the annual allocation of visas. The process in place today replaced the original quota system for immigration established by the Immigration Act of 1924. A system found to very discriminative as it significantly favored Western European applicants (United States Department of State: 1).

Both the current and past measures that have dictated immigration to the US can be viewed as an evolved form of the quota systems developed in the colonial era. The process enacted in 1924 presents strong parallels to the quotas that existed previously. Each system was founded upon inequitable guidelines that served discriminatory interests. The current system, however, is a more advanced model to that of its postcolonial and colonial predecessor. This model seeks to remove discrimination from the process and develop measures to help those in crisis, while still putting the economic interests of the US first. Nevertheless, the case presented by the previous administration’s leadership displays how leadership can jeopardize the integrity of the system. Regardless, this current case shares a structure to the colonial quotas used as a technology of control. This further establishes the recursive nature of the Trump immigration policies, and additionally provides insight to the continuities of colonial technologies of rule that exist in the present.

Another colonial technology of rule was the construction of walls and borders. Establishment of walls in the forms of fences, barricades, or property demarcation was common practice in the colonial area. Walls were effectively used to organize the structure of colonies and extend control over the local people, and have had a significant effect on territories in the postcolonial. Development of the physical and intangible walls in colonial territories permitted the colonial powers to pursue their economic interests, further cultivate the hierarchy of difference, and restrict the movement of the peoples inside and outside of the walls. The effect of walls and borders on the local populations was substantial. Colonial powers have established these enforced divisions through consideration of only their interests. This has resulted in cases like in Africa in which borders were drawn that authoritatively divided local populations (Heath 2010: 1). Complete displacement of indigenous populations has also been seen as a result. The latter effect was particularly evident as a result of the prominent use of wall building by European settlers in America.

Original settlers in North America utilized wall building to serve multiple colonial interests. One interests this technology of rule proved necessary for was the establishment of land ownership in these territories. North America was considered an unoccupied plot of land available for settlement. Settlers imposed this will on the land, ultimately structuring permanent settlements for settlers and the European colonial powers. Wall building proved critical for pushing the indigenous populations away from settlements as well (Philbrick 2006: 130). This interest and its effect were amplified as wall building and further incentivization of land ownership led to the expansion of settlements into distinct colonies, and further along developed the colonies into a new imperial nation. The construction of walls is deeply rooted in the colonial past of America as it critically served as a technology to impose authority and encourage European ideologies and expansion. In the present, this technology of rule still persists and was particularly evident among the immigration policies of the previous Trump administration.

During his presidential term, Trump led a notable campaign to begin construction of a substantial wall along the US-Mexico border. This wall was proposed as a solution to undocumented immigration at the border, an issue Trump centered his campaign around. After failure to pass legislature of this plan through Congress, in 2019, Trump exercised his authority over national emergency funds to initiate the project. This funding oversaw the construction of wall towering over 455 miles of the border (Trump White House 2021: 1). While significant progress was achieved, the project was not completed, as the more recently elected administration ended the project in 2021.

Analyzing this recent case and the use of walls or borders in the colonial past offer further insight into the historical recursion and continuities within the postcolonial US. Through a recursive lens, the use of walls as a technology of rule can be observed to refold into the present from the colonial past. This technology originally implemented to establish territory and the subsequent authority over peoples has evolved to address the issues upon the contemporary postcolonial. In this example, the Trump administration utilizes this colonial technology of rule to further impose authority over the movements people to a scale previously not observed.

In conclusion, multiple aspects of the Trump administration’s institutionalization of impositions upon immigration into the US can be observed and understood as a case of the colonial past existing in the colonial present. In this case, we observe the recursivity of banning travel on a discriminatory basis. Trump’s travel ban illuminates this recursivity as its parallels with prior colonial justifications is applied to the contemporary discussion of terrorist threats within immigration. This case also illuminates the continuities of technologies of power pivotal to the exitance of colonies and their authority. Examination unveils the influence these systems had over creating hierarchies of difference and promoting the interests of past and present authorities. Scrutinization of this case through a postcolonial lens ultimately brings attention to the recursion of this history, the colonial technologies of rule they utilize, and its reinforcement of the colonial will to amplify perceived differences under a notion of progress. By continuing to assess the world of the past and present, we can continue to uncover the incomplete narratives and persistent exploitative technologies from the colonial as we seek to decolonize these relationships.

Citations

Chatterjee, Partha. “Chapter Two. The Colonial State” In The Nation and Its Fragments:

Colonial and Postcolonial Histories, 14-34. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691201429-003

“Chinese Immigration and the Chinese Exclusion Acts.” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration.

Colonial tariffs and quotas, The Round Table. (1937)  28:109, 92-

109, DOI: 10.1080/00358533708450906

E.O. 13769 of Jan 27, 2017

E.O. 13780 Mar 6, 2017

E.O. 13815 of Oct 24, 2017

Gerstein, Josh, and Jeremy C.F. Lin. “Why These 7 Countries Are Listed on Trump’s Travel Ban.” POLITICO. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-travel-ban-supreme-court-decision-countries-map/.

 “How the United States Immigration System Works.” American Immigration Council, April 11, 2022. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-united-states-immigration-system-works#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%2055%2C000%20visas%20are,in%20the%20previous%20five%20years.

“Immigration.” National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/immigration/.

Panduranga, Harsha, Faiza Patel, and Michael Price. “Extreme Vetting and the Muslim Ban.”

Brennan Center for Justice, October 2, 2017. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/extreme-vetting-and-muslim-ban.

Philbrick, Nathaniel. Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War. Penguin Books, 2007.

Stoler, Ann Laura. Duress: Imperial Durabilities in Our Times. Durham: Duke University Press,

2016.

“The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act).” U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act#:~:text=The%20Immigration%20Act%20of%201924%20limited%20the%20number%20of%20immigrants,of%20the%201890%20national%20census.

by: Jenny Huang

Introduction

            The United States food system is plagued with inequalities and inequities that affect African American food culture and societal issues. These inequalities contribute to high rates of food insecurity, health issues, and discriminatory practices. Furthermore, the foundation of the United States was built on the oppression and exploitation of workers; the food system is no different in that it falls victim to a capitalistic society that places value on profits over the well-being of individuals. The marginalization of African Americans in America’s food system is a case of the past in the present; while colonialism is seen as a thing of the past, its effects can still be observed today shaping society and contributing to existing inequalities.

Historical Context

            The Columbian Exchange from the colonial era contributes to and sets the foundation for a capitalistic food system that disproportionately affects African Americans. The Columbian Exchange was the transfer of diseases, ideas, food crops, and populations between the New World and Old World following Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the Americas in 1492 (Nunn and Qian 2010:163). An important aspect of the Columbian Exchange was the transfer of food, which enhanced and influenced different cultures in both the Old and New World. Africa was introduced to new crops from the Americas, such as maize, potatoes, cassava, sweet potatoes, squashes, and tomatoes (McNeill 2023). Food crops from Africa that were transferred to the Americas consisted of coffee beans, sugar cane, rice, watermelon, yams, sorghum, millets, and okra (McNeill 2023). The Columbian Exchange was the beginning of the establishment of crops and plantations in the Americas, which required a need for labor and subsequently lead to the transport of slaves from Africa to provide such labor. It was through this exchange that European empires imposed capitalism and colonialism on the New World with the goal of extracting profits (Constance 2019:82). The practice of commodifying crops during the Columbian Exchange continues to manifest in the modern day, in which agricultural corporations grow crops such as corn, soybeans, etc. at high volumes at the expense of the environment and workers.

The Atlantic Slave Trade was pivotal in the forced migration of Africans to the Americas. The beginning of the practice was based on the justification that slaves were non-Christians.  Later on, the practice was justified by defining superior and inferior races (Wilson 1957: 410). The development of a superior and inferior race cemented the idea and social construction of race. By making Africans seem less than human, it justified the Atlantic Slave Trade, which consisted of inhumane practices, from poor conditions during transport and on plantations in the Americas to the separation of families and overall, loss of humanity and dignity. Between the years 1501 and 1867, approximately 13 million African people were forcibly taken from their homes, placed onto European and American ships, and trafficked across the Atlantic Ocean. The men were given little space, locked spoon-ways together, naked, and forced to lie in urine, feces, blood, and mucus, with limited fresh air (Equal Justice Initiative 2022). Alexander Falconbridge, a British surgeon who was involved in the slave trade, accounts that the slaves didn’t have much room and compares their situation to being in a coffin, in which they were uncomfortable and couldn’t move with ease. On the voyage, a form of resistance was the refusal of food. Alexander Falconbridge (1788) commented:

“Upon the Negroes refusing to take sustenance, I have seen coals of fire, flowing hot, put on a shovel, and placed so near their lips, as to scorch and burn them. And this has been accompanied with threats, of forcing them to swallow the coals, if they any longer persisted in refusing to eat.”

Mustakeem continues to describe the horrors of the Atlantic Slave Trade in his book, Slavery at Sea, in which he deciphers the deeper implications of the colonial practice:

“Much more than simply hollowed wooden structures, slave ships evolved to become physical and economic symbols of technology, power, and authority transcending geographical boundaries…The aggressive management of slaves took different forms at sea…this history of racialized terror and confinement of black people with uninhibited economical potential and exploit in carceral spaces found its deepest roots in the bowels of slavery at sea” (Mustakeem 2016:190).

This trauma from the past transcends time and is embedded in the victim’s psyche. As shown by Jamaica Kincaid’s piece from A Small Place:

“But nothing can erase my rage–not an apology, not a large sum of money, not the death of the criminal–for this wrong can never be made right, and only the impossible can make me still: can a way be found to make what happened not have happened?”

In her piece, she conveys emotions that embody the anger and frustration with the practices of colonialism, which treated slaves like capital, and still to this day, the wrong has not been made right:

“Well, it’s because we, for as long as we have known you, were capital, like bales of cotton and sacks of sugar, and you were the commanding, cruel capitalists, and the memory of this is so strong, the experience so recent, that we can’t quite bring ourselves to embrace this idea that you think so much of.”

Plantations that developed in the southern parts of North America relied on the labor of black slaves. The reliance on black slaves and an established hierarchy resulted in a deep social divide between rich white and poor black communities, which is a consequence of the past that permeates American societies today, even after the abolishment of slavery in 1865. Segregation that took place thereafter reinforced the social divide between black and white communities. Gradually, African American communities in the Americas drew on a combination of African tradition, encounters with European culture, and experiences in the New World to create new identities. The newly developed identities would “prove to be a great enrichment of cultural life and would contribute to the global culture of modern times” (Hardy 2020).

In the Americas, African culture began to shape into the African American culture we know today. It was during the colonial era that a culture was created from a combination of African, European, and Native American food, spices, and methods of cooking. In some cases, slaves had the opportunity to tend to their own gardens and to grow their own food. But the freedom to shape their cuisine was carefully control by what slave owners allowed the enslaved to grow, procure, cook and eat (Miller 2013:19). Food such as pork, meal, and molasses arosed to create the stereotype of soul food. Pigs were easy to raise, corn grew easily throughout the colonies, and molasses was a byproduct of sugar and thus, these foods became staples to enslaved communities. It was stated in Hog and Hominy:

“Many of the traditions that shaped African American eating habits originated in West African cultures. For example, the southern African American tradition of eating dishes like grits and hot water cornbread can be traced back to West Africans, who regularly ate porridges such as kneeling, made first with millet and other indigenous grains and, after the 1600s, with corn that Portuguese slave traders introduced from the Americas.” (Opie 2008:18).

Cooking was a way for slaves to maintain a sense of identity; they maintained an African tradition of one-pot meals that contained starches, and stews of leafy greens that was seasoned with either smoked or pickled ingredients. In order to escape the dullness of a slave diet, creativity and originality was needed to enhance foods such as corn and pounds of pork (Harris 2011:100).

            After the end of slavery, policies and structures began to form that contribute to modern-day inequalities and injustices. This conveys that the mechanisms of colonialism are manifesting themselves in the present day. Although colonialism is in the “past,” it continues to shape the present. Stoler conveys in her piece, Duress:

“Colonial pasts, the narratives recounted about them, the unspoken distinctions they continue to “cure,” the affective charges they reactivate, and the implicit “lessons” they are mobilized to impart are sometimes so ineffably threaded through the fabric of contemporary life forms they seem indiscernible as distinct effects, as if everywhere and nowhere at all” (Stoler 2016:5).

The systematic oppression, racialized structures, and policies in the U.S are all a remnant of the colonial era in which practices of colonialism dehumanized and devalued African American lives and culture. Jim Crow laws, gentrification, discrimination, sharecropping, and redlining are all examples that impact the inequalities African Americans experience. Discriminatory policies continue to affect African Americans and hinder social mobility in the modern day. America’s food system is one way in which colonialism is manifesting itself in the post-colonial era.

U.S Food System

Racism and structural oppression is ingrained in our current society causing communities of color to experience economic disparities that contribute to food injustice. Societal dilemmas such as poverty, homelessness, frail educational infrastructures, mass incarceration, gentrification, pollution, and health disparities reflect the shortcomings of capitalism and the remaining legacy of institutional racism” (Sbicca 2018:341). Since the nineteenth century, U.S agriculture has consolidated small farms into larger agribusiness corporations, and to aid in the process, the U.S. government created loans and subsidies so that farmers could pay for agricultural technology. However, U.S. government loan programs were discriminatory as exhibited by the class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Pigford v. Glickman.  The lawsuit showcased unfair distribution of loans based on race; African American farmers were misinformed about government programs, denied loans, and given inadequate or randomly reduced loans (Alkon 2019:353). Furthermore, practices such as redlining continue to reinforce structural inequalities. Redlining refers to the practice of public and private entities refusing to provide services to neighborhoods because of their racial and ethnic makeup. After World War II, private loans were made available to whites, allowing them to fix up existing housing stock or move to newly constructed suburbs. In this way, whites could build up wealth; however, these loans were denied to African Americans, who became part of increasingly segregated communities (Alkon 2019:351). Discriminatory practices have left African American communities vulnerable to disparities in the food system. The U.S food system is currently plagued with food insecurity, lack of food sovereignty, increased obesity, and environmental degradation (Hatanaka 2019:16).

The shortcomings of the food system in the U.S. disproportionately affects different races and ethnicities. Influenced by factors such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of household assets, African American communities face hunger at a higher rate than other communities. Discriminatory politics and practices have led African Americans to be more likely to live in poverty and more likely to face unemployment (Hake, Engelhard, and Dewey 2022). Studies have shown that black children are more likely to experience hunger than children of other races. Furthermore, while the U.S has a poverty rate of 11.4%, within the Black community, the poverty rate is 19.5% (Hake, Engelhard, and Dewey 2022). African American communities have access to fewer opportunities and financial resources. This can be attributed to past events and structures that continue to disproportionately affect African American communities.

Case Study

Washington D.C, the capital city of the United States, is a case study that represents the inequality African Americans face in the food system. The majority of the city’s poor and working-class Black residents live in wards 7 and 8 (Reese and Garth 2020:38). A history of discrimination exhibits that access to capital has been a significant barrier to entrepreneurship for black people. For instance, hucksters, a vital part of the community, referred to a person who grew food and sold it at markets from stalls or on the street from wagons. Regulations were implemented in 1853 requiring a license and other requirements. Although mobile food entrepreneurs played an important role in the community, city ordinances and concerns for public health and safety led to the establishment of requirements that became barriers to opening and upkeeping a food truck. For example, meeting the requirements for a food truck accrued up to $28,276 (Reese and Garth 2020:38). It exemplifies segregation in the city based on race, income, and ethnicity. The policies that create barriers for African American communities continue to be a remnant of the past in which the dominant white culture sets the standards and seems to know what is best and safe for society; however, in that pursuit, it alienates and fails to incorporate the humanity, needs, and dignity of marginalized groups.

            A group that sought to return dignity and humanity back to African American communities in the U.S. was the Black Panther Party. In Black Food Matters, it was stated:

“The Panthers organized oppressed communities, offering tangible survival strategies for a people under siege, with food as a primary tool of liberation. Food and land have always been central to Black freedom struggles, but the Black Panthers were among the first to frame the peculiar relationship between race, advanced capitalism, food access, and health outcomes in the urban core” (Reese and Garth 2020:89).

The Black Panther Party created “survival programs” such as free food programs that aimed to reclaim their narrative by providing for African American communities themselves. The party faced repression, racism, and backlash from the government, which exemplifies the ongoing racialized systems that suppress marginalized communities. The silencing and reframing of the legacy of the Black Panther Party reflects the ideas from Silencing the Past, in which Trouillot discusses the relationship between history and power and how the production of historical narratives involves the uneven contribution of competing groups (Trouillot 1995:xix). The dominant culture framed the Black Panther Party as violent and highly politicized. The party recognized that the government was not supporting black communities, noticed that hunger was a way of oppressing black communities, and sought to feed the hungry. The framework the Black Panther Party created is still being implemented in food justice initiatives.

Appropriation of Black Food Culture

Culinary and agricultural knowledge of Black people, some of which have been stolen and underappreciated, was essential to the economic development of the United States, and supported the global economic dominance of European countries for centuries (Reese and Garth 2020:17). In Trouillot’s piece, Silencing the Past, he asserts the ways in which history and knowledge are shaped through power relations. In this case, the dominant narrative portrays African American culture as primitive and lesser than others. The dominant culture creates a negative narrative of Black culture, characterizing it as unhealthy and inferior. Furthermore, African American cooks and their culinary expertise have been omitted from the history of American food. African American communities have been cultivating, processing, and preparing traditions that form the basis of American cuisines, but their voice and formal acknowledgment have been erased. For example, the concept of Southern food omits the contributions of African American culture. The appropriation of food entails that members of a dominant or privileged group in a society adopt or lay claim to the production of and profit from Black food culture. Today, the appropriation of Black culture goes to show how the past of vulnerable groups continues to be silenced when there’s a lack of acknowledgment of the origins of foods being created and prepared. An example of the appropriation of food is barbecue. Barbecue is one of the most overlooked racialized cuisines in the United States (Reese and Garth 2020:208). The method of cooking surrounding barbecue can be attributed to Native Americans and the slave-based diet of African Americans during the late eighteenth into the nineteenth century. Barbecue has since been adopted by white Americans and propelled into mainstream society. The erasure of African American contribution and culture in the current mainstream American food culture reflects the continuation of “silencing the past” and the reinforcement of power relations in the modern day.

Conclusion

Through European and American influence, colonialism continues to erupt in the present causing disparities and inequalities that impact marginalized communities in society. Additionally, oppressive and restrictive systems of food distribution have hampered and limited food access and threatened African American food culture. The remaining question is: what does a decolonized food system look like?

Food movements in the past disregarded the injustices experienced by marginalized communities and focused on access to local and organic food among consumers. Currently, the food justice movement factors in the role of race, income, and class play in the current food system. Food justice materialized as an effort through which activists advocate for more just and fair allocation of opportunities and resources through the development of community-based food systems and social policies that focus on supporting marginalized communities. By working from the bottom up, food justice reflects a decolonized future in which the past is no longer silenced and the effects of colonialism are eliminated.

Bibliography

Equal Justice Initiative, “The Transatlantic Slave Trade.” 2022.

Falconbridge, Alexander. An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa, By Alexander Falconbridge, Late Surgeon in the African Trade. 1788. Available through: Adam Matthew, Marlborough, Empire Online, http://www.empire.amdigital.co.uk/Documents/Details/An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa

Hake, Monica, Emily Engelhard, and Adam Dewey. “Map the Meal Gap – Feeding America.” Feeding America, 2022. https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/black-communities.         

Hardy, Will. “Riches & Misery: the Consequences of the Atlantic Slave Trade.” Riches & Misery: The consequences of the atlantic slave trade. Open Learn, September 25, 2020. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/riches-misery-the-consequences-the-atlantic-slave-trade.

Harris, Jessica B. “In Sorrow’s Kitchen.” Essay. In High on the Hog, 89–109. New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2011.

Kincaid, Jamaica. A Small Place. London, UK: Daunt Books, 2018.

Konefal, Jason, and Maki Hatanaka. Twenty Lessons in the Sociology of Food and Agriculture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019.

McNeill, J.. “Columbian Exchange.” Encyclopedia Britannica, April 6, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/event/Columbian-exchange.

Miller, Adrian. “West Africa: The Culinary Source.” Essay. In Soul Food: The Surprising Story of an American Cuisine, One Plate at a Time, 11–28. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2013.

Mustakeem, Sowande’ M. “Epilogue: The Frankenstein of Slavery: A Meditation on Memory.” Essay. In Slavery at Sea: Terror, Sex, and Sickness in the Middle Passage, 190–91. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2016.

Nunn, Nathan, and Nancy Qian. “The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas.” Scholars at Harvard, 2010. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/nunn/files/nunn_qian_jep_2010.pdf.

Opie, Frederick Douglass. “Adding to My Bread and Greens: Enslaved Cookery in British Colonial America.” Essay. In Hog and Hominy: Soul Food from Africa to America, 17–30. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2010.

Reese, Ashanté M., and Hanna Garth. Black Food Matters: Racial Justice in the Wake of Food Justice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2020.

Stoler, Ann Laura. “Critical Incisions On Concept Work and Colonial Recursions.” Essay. In Duress: Colonial Durabilities in Our Times, 3–36. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. “Preface.” Essay. In Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, xvii-30. Boston , MA: Beacon Press, 1997.

Wilson, Ruth Danenhower. “Justifications of Slavery, Past and Present.” The Phylon Quarterly 18, no. 4 (1957): 407–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/273281.