In case you haven’t heard, Jamie Oliver caused outrage amongst many people in the British Caribbean community by calling his latest rice product “jerk rice.” How could something as innocent as rice cause so much offence?
Well the problem is Oliver’s rice meets none of the necessary criteria for being a “jerk product.” In fact since you have to barbeque something for it to be described as jerk, “jerk rice” can’t be a thing.
‘But why does this matter?’ ‘Dawn Butler is talking nonsense.’ ‘There is no such thing as cultural appropriation, it’s a lefty concoction.’, these are the sorts of statements I have seen uttered by most of the political commentators on my social media feeds.
Indeed to put it frankly the quality of debate around the “jerk rice” has been exceptionally poor. It has largely been a slanging match of insults and mockery between two sides who fail to acknowledge that the issue of cultural appropriation is far more nuanced than they present it. This is something I am not keen to wade into.
Instead, as a BAME liberal, I argue that the most important issue raised by the whole Oliver debate is not to do with cultural appropriation but rather the issue of the ownership of offence.
The majority of political commentators in Britain are of white British heritage. Many of these commentators enjoy debating what is and isn’t offensive. But on issues of race and cultural heritage, I believe it should be the recipients of attacking terms and acts who ought to decide whether they are offensive. This is because what a person finds offensive, especially culturally offensive, depends on their background. In Britain in recent times, we have slipped into a political culture where people feel that they have the capacity to determine what is offensive or inoffensive to others.
Boris Johnson’s comments on the burqa were a prime example of this trend as the ensuing fallout saw a whole variety of predominantly white commentators decide which terms burqa wearers could and could not find offensive. This has largely been repeated over the Oliver saga as the same commentators have been deciding what is offensive to Caribbean people, despite the fact that none of them hail from the Caribbean.
Why does this bother me so much?
As a liberal, I believe that there should of course be no legal restrictions on the rights of commentators to make such judgements. However, legal acceptance doesn’t necessarily entail moral correctness. I argue that it is deeply authoritarian to try to determine what things other people, and especially other ethno-cultural groups, should find offensive. This is because if we are to respect individual liberty, then we must respect the individuality of other persons. Respecting the individuality of others, especially those of different backgrounds, entails respecting their right to take offense in different ways to us.
A true liberal therefore doesn’t impose their own criteria of offensiveness on other groups. Instead they allow the groups to talk for themselves. If we are to have a truly liberal debate about potentially offensive issues then we must hear more from the underrepresented groups at the heart of the debates.
* Chris Annous is an executive member of the Liberal Democrat Campaign for Racial Equality (@ldcre1), responsible for young people and blogging.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Sue Gray: Beware of beat-sweeteners and source-greasers
Is Kemi Badenoch still in the lead? - The Week in Polls
Belljar
England urged to bring in minimum unit price on alcohol as deaths rise 10% a year
Peter Martin
Katharine Pindar
Mary Reid
Ken Westmoreland
28 Comments
Am not sure if the line of debate has been setting whether something is offensive or not.
As you say, offense is subjective, hence anybody can be offended by everything, and the next person can be offended by nothing.
A liberal society doesn’t try and police what is deemed offensive. It acknowledges people will get offended by things and puts the onus on the offended to avoid the things they find offensive without restricting the unoffended from freely enjoying the same thing. Some people are offended by the ‘jerk rice’? Okay, as you like, don’t consume it. Other people (including people of Jamaican heritage) might not be offended by it, and may even enjoy consuming it. Great. This is liberalism
Just as people can freely voice their perceived offense at something, so can others ridicule the ridiculousness of their perception. I believe that was the model of Monty Python
Also, I truly hope the expression “cultural appropriation” isn’t making its way here. If it does, let’s hope it stays within Labour circles. The whole subject made the Democrats look ridiculous in the US, so it’s use here might be it’s uptake by Labour to make them look ridiculous
Chris
As a BAME Liberal you may feel about this rice as I do about the phrase, Jamie’s Italian, well, actually, he’s not, but I am half, and his restaurants are mediocre!
As a Half Italian Liberal my opinion is more valid on this, than some, but my view is who is being criticised, why, and thus what is the correct response.
Cultural appropriation is possible and is possibly wrong, but not always.
Tomorrow is the centenary of the birth of the great American and Jewish composer conductor, Leonard Bernstein. He wrote a Mass and dedicated it to his much loved president Kennedy. Was he wrong to write a mass?
I commend you for this article.
My view is that those criticising Jamie Oliver are more guilty of the charge of …jerk…than is his rice, or him!
I see where are you coming from BUT so far as I see it, your argument has a number of flaws.
1) You say that the issue of legal right is different to that of moral right. For that reason, I do not see how it follows that telling other people what they shouldn’t/should find offensive is “deeply authoritarian”, since saying what someone should not say is not the same as employing the mechanisms of the state and courts to shut them up, or even encouraging the courts to do so. Criticism, regardless of where it comes from, is not in itself a form of censorship.
2) “This is because if we are to respect individual liberty, then we must respect the individuality of other persons…….” I’m not sure this is true. We can surely believe that some someone is entitled to hold an opinion, should have freedom of speech etc, without believing we should defer to what they say. I disagree with much of what you say and I think you are wrong, but that doesn’t mean I think you shouldn’t be able to say your opinion (sorry for double negative).
3) “A true liberal therefore doesn’t impose their own criteria of offensiveness on other groups. Instead they allow the groups to talk for themselves.” I’m not sure this is true either. Doesn’t a true liberal believe in universal rights – freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc – that should be applied regardless of whether an individual takes offence at them? Besides, many accepted scientific and liberal ideas have been deeply offensive to politicians and religious groups (some conservative christians take “offence” at homosexuality, for example). In such instances, giving offence is good, progressive and liberal.
3) We can only inhabit cultures. No one *owns* a culture (as the ridicule Butler received from others of Caribbean heritage shows, no one person can take ownership of a culture), and so by implications no one individual has the legitimacy to say what is offensive to a culture as oppose to them personally.
If you read this, thank you for doing so, and I would be happy to engage with any response you have.
Stick it to them Chris.
I am genuinely puzzled about the jerk rice row. Fusion foods are very popular at the moment – Nadiya Hussain is coming up with some interesting dishes that bring together Asian and European styles of cooking, and we often see unusual combinations on Master Chef. Not to mention chicken tikka masala ….
Perhaps Jamie Oliver might have been wiser to have called his dish Caribbean inspired rice or similar, but describing it as jerk, when it clearly isn’t, is hardly a crime. But, like Chris, I would be interested to hear from someone of Jamaican heritage on this.
I tried buying hot food in a street market in South Croydon. The retailers were somewhat surprised. This was the first time I had eaten cooked goatmeat, somewhat spicy.
Jamie Oliver has varied from the traditional recipe and been criticised for doing so by purists. He should learn a lesson in humility.
@Chris Annous, I too am concerned at the faux outrage by members of the ethnically white population (of whom I am one) on behalf of others, whose sensitivities they presume to know. Jerk rice is a silly name for a product which meets none of the criteria of ‘jerk’; silly because it misleads. Any offence caused to anyone is more likely to be caused by the product than the name, and not just to those of Caribbean heritage.
Richard Underhill 24th Aug ’18 – 9:48pm………….I tried buying hot food in a street market in South Croydon. The retailers were somewhat surprised. This was the first time I had eaten cooked goatmeat, somewhat spicy.
Jamie Oliver has varied from the traditional recipe and been criticised for doing so by purists. He should learn a lesson in humility………………
What has this spat to do with humility?
The first time I ate ‘Pepperpot Stew’ was in Nigeria and such dishes were made with various meats (goat tripe in one). In Jamaica the same dish was different and I believe the USA has it’s own version.
Should Nigerians claim it as theirs and get ‘upset’ that the Caribbean/USA isn’t making it in the ‘traditional way’? After all, I’m sure it was a West African dish first.
Irish stew is ‘traditionally made with mutton/lamb and yet that heretic Jamie Oliver makes one using beef. I urge all true Irishmen, and women, to picket his restaurants until he recants.
We live in an age where there are lots of people particularly on the intellectual left who look for every opportunity to take offence simply in order to stir things up. To over 99% of the population what matters is whether food tastes nice and whether it is healthy.
I, for one, am very pleased that this is the first LDV article that is about “cultural appropriation.” I hope there isn’t a need for another in a long time.
@Chris Annous – I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make in your article. You say that anyone should be allowed to define what they find offensive, but I’m not aware that anyone has ever disputed that. What people have always disputed is whether someone’s offence should be treated as reasonable and whether others should adjust their behaviour as a result. The point is that everything is offensive to someone, somewhere, and society has to make a balanced judgement on what offences should be considered reasonable. Lots of people are offended by displays of homosexual affection, or breastfeeding in public, or critical discussion of their gods and holy figures, etc Society rightly determines that these offences should not be treated as reasonable.
You appear to be implying (and I could be wrong, please correct me if so) that the offence of BAME people should be always treated as reasonable, and therefore when they are offended people should always adjust their behaviour – but I think this is a very troubling proposition. Not only does it rate the opinions and feelings of people according to their skin colour (how could this *ever* be a good idea?), but also BAME people are just as capable of being unreasonable as any other group. For example some BAME communities are exceptionally conservative, and consider women showing their faces in public to be offensive, or men and women associating casually to be offensive, etc. I absolutely reject that we should accept this just because.
@David Evans – Actually this isn’t the first article about Cultural Appropriation on LDV. I wrote one quite a few years ago:
“Opinion: ‘Cultural appropriation’ – a horrible concept from progressives”
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-cultural-appropriation-a-horrible-concept-from-progressives-2-45134.html
It’s obviously been a mistake to use the term ‘jerk’ when that means something different to so many people, but a lot of the hatred towards Jamie Oliver comes from people who already disliked him for trying to feed our kids well. I’m not saying he always gets things right, but he clearly has good intentions with many of his projects, and IMO that’s what grinds the gears of a lot of critics.
I’ve seen so many takes on “cultural appropriation” with a whole range of views from people from cultures that may or may not have been appropriated. As far as I can tell, most people from ethnic minorities have no problem with sharing their culture, with the majority also enjoying having access to cultures other than their own. There’s an intellectual dishonesty to thinking that culture should only ever go one way, and more often than not displays a limited understanding of history, or anthropology and want to freeze one aspect of a culture in time. For example, the earliest recorded wearing of dreadlocks is, if I’ve remembered correctly Ancient Greece.
Not to say there are not any examples where actual cultural appropriation is negative, but far too often it’s a phrase touted to shut down debate on a culture, instead of exploring it. It too often promotes a silo mentality to cultures, and can encourage segregation. IMO, the desire to root out cultural appropriation causes the most damage to people with a mixed heritage.
I notice that concerns about cultural appropriation are greater in the US, and while they probably think we have backward, or imperialistic views to race, I can’t help but think their approach is shaped by segregation, and because many of the appropriators haven’t bothered to hide their own racism. Meanwhile, British, and European culture has been rooted in centuries worth of exploring and sharing cultures, and we have all felt the benefited. I think so long as you are respectful of the originating culture, it’s usually fine. If you think that someone is getting something wrong about someone else’s culture, there’s usually a better way to explain it than shouting “cultural appropriation”.
@Mark Wright. Thanks for letting me know Mark. It wasn’t tagged under “Cultural Appropriation” so I missed it.
It is interesting to note some of the shallow comments fired at you by some commentators in that thread, most of whom didn’t engage with you at more than a superficial level when you responded. Particularly interesting was the personal attack on your intelligence, which said so much more about the poster than you when you, who several people picked up on, but no further post was made by the originator.
All in all, I agree with what you said.
Cultural appropriation? Naaah! Load of rubbish. Cultures appropriate, always have and always will. That’s what people do.
Mislabeling though, that’s another matter.
Jamie Oliver’s so called jerk rice doesn’t contain the spices so essential to a jerk marinade – pimento (allspice) and scotch bonnets – and you can’t jerk rice anyway. When meat or fish is jerked it’s a chemical cooking process that helps tenderize it prior to it going on the barbecue. To suggest in any way that this can be done to rice is rubbish and is just suckering the gullible shopper who doesn’t know what “jerk” means in a food context.
It’s not unlike me calling a cheese and ham sandwich a Yorkshire pudding.
And on that basis it clearly shouldn’t be allowed. Liberals do after all believe in proper consumer protection laws, descriptions of goods and all that… any lawyers specializing in the Trades Description Act / consumer law want to have fun putting Jamie Oliver’s nose out of joint?
Of course those that think Jamie Oliver is a jerk for describing his rice as jerk rice would then have to concede that describing his rice as jerk rice was OK – in which case he couldn’t describe his rice as jerk rice and then he would be a jerk and describing his rice as jerk rice would be OK…… !
@ Mary Reid,
If you would like to hear from someone of Jamaican heritage, rather than outraged white ‘liberals’, I can think of no better person than Dr Tony Sewell, CEO of Generating Genius.
If you wish to read his view on this brouhaha, and if you can bear to read an article on Mail online:
‘I despair of the finger waggers more angry about Jamie Oliver’s Jamaican jerk rice than young black men being stabbed on our streets’.
Cultures are not static or fixed . We all change as a consequence of our widening experiences of other cultures and cultures change over time.
Dr Sewell’s comment about jerk recipes, reminded me of my time working in India, where I first tasted a pudding known as Kheer. My hostesses when complimented, could not give a precise recipe with proportions of ingredients, but a recipe I found on return to England was described as ‘Indian Rice Pudding’ Recipe’, something that caused great amusements to the hostesses who had introduced me to it, and on subsequent visits, served Kheer up as such.
Most of my time working abroad, introduced me to the displeasure of seeing individuals who were starving because of inadequate, or no access to food. And I am sure that even in this country, there are individuals from all cultures who finding themselves having to avail themselves of food from food banks to feed their children, would not turn their nose up at a handout of jerk rice.
It’s a storm in an ‘EnglishTea’ cup.
@Jayne, I think the point to remember is that while it is vital that we listen to the lived experiences and views of those from the relevant culture, it’s essential to remember that no one individual from that culture can be assumed to represent all views from that culture. And that works both ways, both those insisting something is very definitely offensive, and those who are adamant that anyone taking offence should be ignored.
As far as I can tell, we should always give consideration to anyone who is offended by a particular behaviour, but as with other issues, simply claiming offence doesn’t trump other considerations.
I am reminded of a BBC documentary I saw recently about young Pakistani men in the UK and how some are struggling with their identity. Mehreen Baig went to Pakistan to visit the areas where most British Pakistani’s originate, and after a bit of touring around she noticed that some British immigrants feel obliged to stick to a rigid version of their traditions out of a sense of loyalty to what they think they ought to be. On the other hand Pakistani people in Pakistan may be a lot more relaxed about adapting to influences from other cultures and the modern world in general because they don’t have to prove themselves.
No such thing as vegan schnitzel then?
@ Fiona,
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. However, whilst understanding the principles underpinning the notion of cultural appropriation, and having heard more nuanced arguments supporting it, my fear, is that outside the university debating chamber, it seems like another attempt at maintaining division when we should be working towards harmony.
Worse, if individuals who consider themselves to be from a non- dominant culture spend their time arguing that jerk rice, cornrows or whatever form of dress, style, food etc., is the cultural appropriation of a dominant culture with no respect for the historical meaning ( do many people have a grasp of history these days?), or are just apeing a stereotype of that culture, I am afraid they seem to have a skewed set of priorities or too much thinking time on their hands. They may feel offended but I think there are more important things to be offended about, so I reserve my right to be irritated by their offence.
We live in a multicultural society not a monocultural one, and those who are offended might just see things from the point of view of the ‘offender’, who actually thinks that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery’, rather than finding another reason to feel anger towards those who they feel are ignorant of the history behind the superficialities. The old colonialists would have been horrified to see that we are all free to dress, cook, appear in ways that are beyond the pale, literally as well as metaphorically.
Bo Derek emerging from the sea in 10 , her hair in cornrows, was, in my opinion, relatively unforgettable, compared to the , deeper beauty, dignity and meaning of Chris Ofili’s ‘ No woman no cry’. Personally, I thought the actress looked daft and represented superficiality not power, but there is no law against looking daft, any more than there is a law about eating something vegetarian called jerk that has no scotch bonnets in it.
Some of the posts on here are a mini- demonstration of how individuals who are sympathetic to the challenges of people from a non -dominant cultural background, can feel exasperated by the trivialities of some complainants, when there are so many more important issues that need fighting in the cause of social justice for all British citizens regardless of background.
Adam 25th Aug ’18 – 12:30pm……………As for mislabelling, I remember when ‘curries’ seemed to consist mainly of swedes and sultanas and i’m old enough to have actually eaten a ‘Vesta Curry’. It’s a wonder that calling such a concoction a ‘curry’ didn’t lead to the removal of our High Commission in New Delhi.
Jamie has previous form here getting into the same mess 4 years ago with his “incorrect” Jollof rice recipe. I realised that I myself had unknowingly been making my own Jollof rice in Europe (even a small supermarket there sells all the ingredients and there are only so many ways to put them together before you accidentally make it).
The problem here is the British obsession with trying to make named dishes which have definitive versions and not just cooking something good with the ingredients available. In Jamie’s case, trying to please his audience by making named dishes is going to continually run into conflict with his desire to be creative and add value that way.
Cultural appropriation and misnaming things are two different things.
The first IMHO is an absurd concept – we would look ridiculous if we tried to say that only people from England should play cricket and football or use computers and other cultures look ridiculous when they try to say the same to us. Having said that, restricting tie-wearing only to Croatians might make the summer more bearable.
On the other hand, a culture is entitled to expect that when something of theirs is borrowed by another culture, that it is accurately portrayed, and so its legitimate to expect the same of “jerk” food too. It would be fine if he did the recipe accurately, and it would be fine if he did his own recipe with his own name, but he shouldn’t try to sneak in his own dish under a name that already means something else – it’s not so much cultural appropriation as cultural erasure.
@ expats.
Funnily enough, those curries made from swede, sultanas etc. were originally called a “peeno” curry – P&O. They were approximations made up by Lascars using whatever food the ship owners purchased when in port. Hence the weird ingredients. A bit like the American chop suey (mixed bits) made up with whatever the Chinese immigrants could get hold of… so they’re not necessarily inauthentic. Not truly Indian or Chinese, but they still have an authenticity of their own, and a genuine link to their countries of origin.
The Vesta curry however was a whole new level of vileness and the Indian Government would have been perfectly within their rights to expel the British High Commissioner and break off all diplomatic ties with the UK.
Let’s face it folks – virtually everything that is sold to us especially as ready meals etc. and in the main supermarkets – is inauthentic to some degree or another and often a very large degree. The food companies love peddling a false provenance to us. Virtually everything is adapted for British tastes.
I do note that Levi Roots who criticised Jamie Oliver markets Caribbean Coconut Curry crisps! Really????? It seems just like jerk rice to me.
—
Food is rather like language everyone – perhaps particularly English – is madly borrowing from everyone else. Do we have to hand back all our foreign words – especially those that we borrowed and then completely changed the meaning of? Do we have to establish the equivalent of the Academie Francaise to guard the cultural purity of our language and indeed our food and avoid the sins of misappropriation? Unfortunately it doesn’t work anyway and you have to go with the cultural flow.
Tea is not grown in Britain and is not drunk with milk and sugar in China.
@ Ian Martin
“Tea is not grown in Britain…”
It is now… though admittedly not much of it.
https://tregothnan.co.uk/
and what about Australia’s appropriation of the Kiwi pavlova? Disgraceful!
Cultural Appropiation is one of the great drivers of Human Civilisation. The Renaisance itself was based on wholesale appropiation of Alien, Pre-Christian cultures, often accompanied by complete misunderstanding. Its a Liberal Idea.
As daughter of a father with traveller heritage I look forward to getting very cross when Jamie appropriates hedgehog (hotchi witchi) baked in clay!
@ Ruth Bright,
Be careful of tongue in cheek ( or may I impertinently assume that your post was tongue in cheek).
Tomorrow’s new headlines:-
Gypsies cause of fall in number of hedgehogs’.
or
‘Jamie Oliver cause on fall of number of hedgehogs’.