These Common Foods Are Now Considered ‘Racist’

G. Daniela Galarza, staff writer for the Washington Post’s food section, wants you to stop calling certain food categories “exotic” because, as you probably guessed, it’s racist and xenophobic to do so.

Right away in her article, Galarza gripes about how many complaints she’s received from readers who were unable to locate the many “exotic” ingredients required in her recipes.

She says that she had “productive exchanges” with some of her readers in an attempt to “troubleshoot their issues,” but concluded that she’s not actually at fault for directing readers to use ingredients that have never been heard of in their country. Instead, Galarza says that your version of ‘exotic’ isn’t the same as her version of ‘exotic.’ In itself, that’s not too unreasonable a conclusion, had she stopped there.

But instead, Galarza wrote a 2,000 word article full of ‘woke’ nomenclature, claiming that the word ‘exotic’ when applied to food, “indirectly lengthens the metaphysical distance between [groups] and… reinforces xenophobia and racism.”

She further alleges that European conquerors coined the term ‘exotic’ to describe things which they encountered on their exploratory adventures and therefore the word is “completely tied to… colonialism and slavery,” as she quips from Serena J. Rivera, an assistant professor of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Pittsburgh.” She adds that calling something ‘exotic’ is to automatically declare something to be ‘other’ than “us,” and in order to make such a claim, the speaker would have to be “in a position of power.”

Rivera, still not done, claims that food has been whitewashed, meaning that a “dominant culture,” has altered the ‘exotic’ food until it meets their standards of palatability.

In Galarza’s bonus round for coining the latest in verboten language, terms such as ‘ethnic’ and ‘alien’ need to be abolished, because they refer to things which are from “outside” of a culture, keeping it exclusionary from the culture.

Galarza, once again, close to making an interesting point, instead falls back on the groupthink of the progressive left, attempting to paint everything in sight with a coat of shame. She adds a warning, that words are “never inherently neutral” or objective, then citing Rivera who explains that words carry a heavy history with them.

    Author: Eric Moss