To take and use parts of a different people’s/ country’s food or culture for your own profit while simultaneously denigrating the context from which it came from is the definition of cultural appropriation which is one way in which racism is practiced.

Perhaps, Mexico would have more money for public health infrastrucutre if it wasn’t for NAFTA. To discuss “runs” in Mexico without discussing historical processes (of which Canada and the owner’s whiteness is a big part) that continue to contribute to it is dishonest and perpetuates racism.

“Great American Taste, Without Turning You Into a Fat F*ck!”

“Great English Food, That Actually Has Taste!”

Offensive?

And maybe this also gets at the frustration that I often feel when I’m talking to people who aren’t already convinced, that the subtle arguments or distinctions that I’m working hard to make get shut down or side-lined by broad sweeping generalizations.

So how do we get people to be more interested in the subtleties?

That’s an interesting way of putting it Becky, and I worry that it might actually be accurate.

To be clear: I don’t think that we shouldn’t call out more subtle incarnations of racism, and I think you have an excellent point that those might in aggregate be a or the major part of racism in a politeness-aspirant country like Canada. But I think if we want to be convincing to people who aren’t already convinced then our challenge of subtle racism needs to subtle itself. If there are important distinctions to be made, then they probably should.

I disagree that this is a case of ‘crying wolf’ though. I think it is actually a prime example of the kind of subtle racism that passes so easily in Canada, and that continues to make those of us who are white as normal, and those who aren’t as somehow not-quite-normal. And while there are certainly cases of more violent racism that also need to be addressed, that doesn’t mean that the more subtle moments of racism should be ignored. In fact, I think it is precisely this kind of logic that allows subtle racism to continue. And personally, I’m not satisfied that because there is worse racism out there, that we shouldn’t address this moment racism.

To think that this is ‘crying wolf’ is a sort of zero-sum approach to challenging racism. It assumes that people only have a certain capacity or tolerance for race-analysis, and that we don’t want to waste that precious resource on such a small example racism. However, I believe that racialized thinking is what allows for racialized violence. Making examples of racialized thinking more explicit helps us understand what makes racialized violence possible.

I take your point that racism is something felt by the denigrated group, and as a white guy I might not have the background to understand the full impact of the ad. But it’s a smiling cactus riffing on the fact that Canadians often get diahrea when they go to Mexico, which they do. “Hateful”? There’s a danger in crying wolf.

And, welcome to blogging! where you can put yourself on the line by attempting to articulate your honest thoughts, and then feel cut down by a single snarky drive-by comment.