le blog rliamo144 par : Liam

In this entry, I hope to convince all of you that you should stop supporting these horrible companies.  Without too much difficulty, I could expand this article to include many other TNCs (ie Trans National Corporations) like Wal-Mart, but for the sake of simplicity I will focus on eating establishments.

To be fair, a little bit of over-generalisation is unavoidable here.  However, I must acknowledge that all chain restaurants aren't the same.  I will therefore construct a rough typology:

Class I: "unhealthy fast food": McDonalds, Burger King, KFC (PFK), Taco Bell, Starbucks, Tim Horton's, Dairy Queen, etc.

Class II: "healthy fast food": Subway, Panera, Wendy's, etc.

Class III: "casual sit down chains": Dennys, Applebees, Chillis, Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Cracker Barrel, etc.

Class IV: "local chains": La Belle Province (QC), etc. (obviously, specific to region).

This entry is going to focus on how you really shouldn't eat at ANY of these places - ever - but to be fair, I consider Class I to be the worst.  Classes II & III are about equally as bad- Class III might even be slightly worse.  Class IV I think is the type of place, while not good, you could go to if there's no better options.

Now, reasons why we should not go to these places:

I. Frozen food: as far as I know, with few exceptions, these places rely almost solely on frozen food.  I don't think people really seem to care about this, but it's just not natural.  Our bodies weren't built to eat pre-frozen food.  Granted, in the 21st century it is quite unpractical never to eat frozen food- I myself freeze meat quite often, since prices are soo inconsistent I have to stock up when it's cheap.  That's not so much a big deal.... the problem is that they freeze EVERYTHING.  Vegetables, potatoes, dairy products, soups!  We are part of an affluent society- we should be eating fresh!  How is it that the poorest people seem to eat fresher than us?

II. Unnatural food: Similarly, the food made in these restaraunts is often highly processed.  The food is loaded up with unnatural preservatives in the effort of making them "taste" as fresh as possible for as long as possible.  While people might not think this is so bad, we are injesting chemicals that are unnatural and that our bodies were not designed to cope with. 

III. Low quality food: These companies seek to offer the lowest prices, and in order to afford this, they offer the lowest quality.  They select low grade vegetables, low quality oils, reject meats, and genetically morphed grains.  The only people who would buy the same products for their home kitchens are the dejected of society.  Despite the fact that these restaurants offer a deal cheaper than the neighbourhood restaurant, it's still much more expensive then cooking for yourself a meal of exponentially better quality-  of course, it's more convenient to eat at these places.

IV: Mass-produced: Let me not dwell on the lack of personality put into the food which is mass produced- for one, I have already written on this subject, and for another most people simply don't care about this.  Even if you ignore that, there is still the oecological factor of this.  Subway, which is based in Connecticut, sends premade bread and sandwich fillings to ALL of its branches.  That means, trucks have to run with subway supplies to Illinois or wherever there may be Subways.  Why not just go somewhere where the food is local: at the very least, you'll reduce your oecological footprint.

V: Nutritional issues: Admittedly this can't be applied to all restaurants.  But if you put aside the fact that in all restaraunts the food is loaded with unnatural chemicals which cause unimaginable damage to your bodies, the food is still often of poor nutritional value.  Big Macs contain almost all of your recommended daily fat intake.  Most of the food you get in these places are extraodinarily high in fat, especially saturated fat, and low in fibre and vitamins.  If this was the only reason,  it should still be enough to stop going to these places.

VI: Poor service: Many of these restaraunts have poor service.  I saw a commercial for McDonalds one time where the "waitress" actually walked up to a customers table and poured him a cup of coffee- of course this never happens.  You have robotic, homogenised drones at the cashiers, who take your order - WITHOUT a smile - and call your number when it's ready, handing you a paper bag.  In contrast, in a neighbourhood restaurant they can connect more with their community - because it's the only place their located.  While the service isn't always nicer, it's usually more personal.

VII: More environmental issues: this is antoher point I've discussed in a previous entry.  This doesn't apply to ALL restaurants, but there are several environmental issues with most of these places:
          a) These restaurants, in particular classes I & II rarely, if ever, use real dishes.  Everything is given to you in take-away friendly wrapper, regardless if you're eating it there or not.  This produces more waste.                                     
    b) As I already said, in many cases (except Class IV), food is produced in some plant at a centralised area, and shipped out- at an oecological cost of transportation.
      c) Portion sizes in some of these places, especially in Class III, are often excessive.  A steak could mean a 400 g or more portion size.  Sometimes, it's up to a kilo.  This comes despite the fact that, environmentally speaking, we shouldn't eat too much more than 150-200 g a day- ideally less.

VIII: Corporate ethics: These restaurants are so big and have so much money that they undercut small businesses.  The fact that small businesses can no longer thrive as easily makes it a more stratified economy- with the corporate moguls on top and the mom and pop on bottom.  Slowly, competition will be eliminated: it will be all chains or nothing.  The chains also "invade" other cultural areas, particularly in developing countries which undermines local culture and local entrepreneurs.

That's all I can think of for now.  For the future of our world, I plead to you NOT to support these companies.  Do it for yourself, do it for small business owners, do it for the environment - I don't care.  I just don't want to see our world turn into a giant mcdonalds. 

"I'm sick and tired of being politically correct," John Cougar Mellencamp sings in one of his more recent songs, entitled "Peaceful World".  I couldn't have said it any better.

One thing that really drives me crazy is how I feel like I have to walk on egg shells with what I say - around certain people anyway.  I just think it's annoying.  Sometimes I say something that offends someone and sometime I'm "too quiet". 

Now it would be kinda funny if I offended someone through this entry.... in order to minimise the potential irony in this, I am going to exclaim right now that it is NOT my intention to offend ANYONE.  This is not directed at any one person in particular.  It only represents my opinions and believes, which, I am aware, are not necessarily God's truth.  You are all free to disagree with me- and I always encourage disagreement (or agreement!) in comments- just PLEASE do it in a manner which is respectful and dignified.

I don't want to imply that it's impossible to offend people.  I, myself, have been offended on several occasions.  I'm aware this is different for different people- and I don't want to judge other cultures.  One thing that I consider truly offensive is unwarranted personal attacks.  As I've written in a previous entry, one person should not under almost any circumstance call another person ugly, and direct critcisms of another's personality should only (in my opinion of course) be given if: a) the individual in question ASKED for a direc criticism, or b) a certain aspect of the individual is so obnoxious that it is no longer tolerable to be around.  Like, say if your roommate is extremely messy and never does dishes.  I think in these situations, it should always be handled with tact and respect (as much as it is possible).  I don't think it's really appropriate to directly criticise someone on small things if they don't ask you for such criticism.  What it all boils down to is .... respect.  I try to respect everyone, and I expect them to respect me.  If someone has no respect for me, then it offends me- on a personal level.

I also believe that blaspheme is legitimately offensive to some people.  Many individuals live their lives primarily in the service of God (in whatever form they worship Him), and insulting God in their presence is very demeaning.  I don't think this is a hard point for most people to realise- again it goes back to respect.  By respecting (not necessarily worshiping) whatever god someone believes in, you also respect that person.  On the other hand, if you mock the said deity- you're mocking that person's beliefs, and essentially his whole lifestyle.

I could also add a third category- which is quite contextual.  When you are a guest in a different culture/society or in someone's home (or at a job interview, etc), then you should be at a heightened level of respect.  In these situations, you are being hosted/served by another individual, possibly in a more powerful position than you, and in this case, you need to watch what you do.  You may not necessarily offend the other party by your actions, but it may be perceived as low class and poor form.

That seems to cover a lot of ground, doesn't it?  There are also a lot of situations it doesn't cover.  When you're around your peers, I don't believe that the final rule applies.  In an informal, casual setting, I believe people shouldn't have to watch everything they say.  That's the wonderful thing about language- it allows us to joke, to exaggerate, to embellish, etc.  Often things are exaggerated and/or embellished simply to make life more interesting.... if everything that was ever said was only politically correct truth, then nothing of substance would ever really be said.  And I think people should consider what the intentions are behind whatever's being said... if they're not clearly malicious, then who cares?

Let me give an example: "Black people can't swim." 
    1) Is this statement true?  Not really, since I bet you can find at least one black person who can swim.
    2) Does it have any sort of validity to it? Hard to assess... it's a reasonably well-known stereotype in the US that black people can't - or at least really don't like to- swim.  I can say that I went to a high school with a reasonably high black population (I'd estimate at least 10%), and with mandatory swimming lessons, and I could tell you that the black people at my school really didn't enjoy swimming.
    3) Why would someone say this? It depends on context really.  Part of it has to do with humour- maybe they were just trying to be funny.  But it's also an observation.
   4) Is this offensive?  Absolutely not!  No, I'm not a black person, so maybe some people don't accept my answer... but if this offends you, you have some real issues.  I will tell you why it shouldn't offend you:
          a) It is not 100% untrue.  Of course, many black people can swim, just like many white people can't.  But it's almost general knowledge that on average, black people enjoy swimming less, thus do it less often, thus are less adept at it.
          b) It is not malicious.  The person behind this quote shows no intention of harming a black person, nor does he show any hostility towards black people.  In a certain context, it could be perceived as arrogant and disrespectful (like if he went on to list many other things that black people "can't do"), but just from this quote, it's not possible to say that.
     5) What else could he have said?
              a) "Someone told me once that black people can"t swim" - This is valid, and a nicer way to phrase it, but not entirely true unless someone actually did tell you this.
              b) "It seems that black people swim with less frequency" - This is weak and flimsy speech.... if this is the kinda talk we're reduced to, then why bother having casual conversation?  It also generalises almost to the same extent as the original quote.
              c) Nothing.... the safest solution, at often what we're reduced to.  But is this what we should aspire to?

In sum, I believe that this is not an offensive remark, no a particularly innappropriate one.  I think it's true for many other remarks of a similar nature.  Not everything that everyone says has to be 100% true... generalisations just make speech easier, and more entertaining. 

Let me just list a few exceptions to this principle:
   1) Formal settings- as I said before, formal settings require a different standard of speech.  This is not so much to avoid offending the person by the actual content of the speech, but its more about respecting the formality of the circumstance and the power the other individual likely has over you.  A perfect example of this would be a job interview, or around your girlfriend's parents.  This also applies in academic settings- you shouldn't write "black people can't swim" on a paper, nor should you make any similar claim unless you support it with REAL data.
   2) Remarks which have a malicious intent.  For example, saying "black people should die" is totally inappopriate. This I consider offensive.  I think the distinction between such a remark, and the other remark above is pretty clear.
  3) Remarks which show clear evidence of condesencion.  I think this is where it gets tricky... as people might claim that "black people can't swim" would fall in this category.  I'm more referring to things more blatant and subjective, like "black people are stupid".  You guys can debate me on this one, but I think this is an important disction to make.  If you say "black people can't swim", you're not necessarily implying anything bad about black people- unless you also say that everyone should know how to swim, or knowing how to swim is some mark of superiority, etc.  Not knowing how to swim is not widely accepted as a negative trait- I don't know how to swim, and i don't consider myself in any way inferior to anyone else because of that.  On the contrary, saying "black people are stupid" would be both not true and pejoritive.  It's not true becuase there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence which supports this (of course, you could say with a reasonable degree of truthfullness that black people are less educated), and it's pejoritive becuase stupidity is almost universally considered a negative characterisitc.
   4) Remarks which have NO evidence whatsoever.  Again this is tricky.  My discussion earlier about how black people can't swim doesn't have very good evidence- it's based only my own experiences and observations.  At the very best, I can support it with some sort of anecdote.  Of course, as I said, no one is going to claim that ALL black people can't swim- its just a generalisation.  But if you say that "black people are stupid"- there's no real evidence of that.  Sure, maybe you could pull up some SAT scores, but is that an indication of intelligence of education?  Whereas if you say black people are less educated, sadly this is true and is clearly indicated by many statistics regarding black people and post secondary education- I also don't think anyone would debate you at this point.

So, if I could sum up this long article is just a few points.  If someone says something, before freaking out at them, please consider a few things:

    1) What was the person's intention in saying X?  Chances are quite likely that the person had NO intention of offending anybody.  Most people just aren't like that.  If someone wasn't trying to offend you, then the fact that you're offended just reflects a heightened sensitivity.  This is especially true with respect to culturally related things... chances are, whatever they're saying has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with you.  Maybe they were just being funny?
    2) If we chose not to say anything that could potentially offend someone, then most people would just go silent.
    3) Our world is so confusing.  The fact is, almost nothing in our world exists in black or white- there are millions of shades of grey.  Saying anything substantial about the reality of our world is almost impossible, becuase for almost every statement you could make, there will probably be some counter-example.  I think this fact has to be taken into account when in formal settings- especially in academia.  In casual conversation, however, its tedious and pointless to consider every single exception and alternate case.  For the sake of simplicity and comprehensibility, generalisations are necessary - as long as there's some grain of truth in it (or at least an argument could be made for it.
    4) Our world is boring.  People have known this fact for years.  From ancient Irish storytellers, to the current storytellers at Marrakech, do you really believe that every story is told ver-batum?  Personally, I think the art of telling a story exists partially in the act of embellishing it.  Again, this depends on the context- and doesn't apply in academic settings.  In casual conversation, however, I almost consider it a necessity!
    5) In the words of John McCain: "Lighten up and get a life!"  Unless someone has just attacked you personally, don't dwell on it!  It is mostly likely that they meant NO harm whatsoever.  Might their remark have been poorly timed?  Sure- but who among is perfect?  So just relax.... make life easier for all of us.

First, I want to preface this article by saying that it is not my intention to offend anyone.  That said, I find North America (including the USA & Canada) to be dire, depressing, and culturally impoverished places, perhaps best-described as a spiritual wasteland.

Admittedly, there are some great parts about North America- after all, many people keep coming here from all parts of the world.  Without a doubt, North America, especially the US but also Canada, is the world's capital of opportunity.  Let's face it: economically, there's a lot happening here.  Wall Street is the financial centre of the world.  Hollywood is the cinematic/"celebrity" centre of the world- anyone who dreams of making it big in show business knows that he/she has to make it to Hollywood.  The US is home to a disproportionate amount of the world's best universities.  According to this site: http://www.arwu.org/rank/2005/ARWU2005_Top100.htm, the US is home to 37 out of 50 of the world's best universities.  If you count the 2 for canada, that means almost 80% of the world's top notch universities are in NOrth America.  The best of the best- Harvard, Princeton, Yale - are all in the US.  ALl of this confirms the point that North America, much more so than other developed areas like Japan, Australia, or Europe, is the home of opportunity.  And, North America, when compared to European nations, being inherently immigrant-based societies, are generally more welcome to forgeigners seeking opportunity.  North America is also much cheaper than Europe and Japan... and boasts a more intact and vast wilderness.

North America should be amazing, right?  Yet it isn't.  I find it to be overly dependent on mass production, über efficeincy, superficiality, materialism, and kitsch.  People here don't really maintain any traditions.  In other parts of the world, festivals and rituals are still rich.  Here, they become negotiable.  we don't HAVE to eat that turkey dinner for christmas this year.... let'S just take out chinese.  Oh, let's not bother celebrating Easter- no one's around anyway.  ... and it staggers me in Quebec that people just ignore Thanksgiving.  The holidays that do remain important- such as Halloween- are really just excuses for mass consumption and partying.  In other words, its just really tacky.  It's about gaudy decorations and presents, and not about symbolic ritual or tradition.

One thing that I think is interesting throughout the world is the prevalance of coffee and/or tea cultures.  If you go to Europe, which is culturally the most related continent to NA, coffee shops are quite prevelant, as they are in North America.  The difference is in the nuances. In Europe, you sit down at a coffee shop, someone comes to serve you coffee (and whatever else you want).  They serve you a robust brew, in a real cup, and give you a home made pastry on a real plate.  You can stay for as long as you want.  In North America, you go to an homogenised international chain (ie, Starbucks), you queue up to order your weak coffee and mass produced pastry at a counter, wait until someone puts it in a paper bag and paper cup, then you sit down at your table and abide by your 20 minute limit.  

My point is this: North Americans lack individuality and pride in themselves and what they create.  The coffee example illustrates this well.  In Europe (or other parts of the world), if someone opens up a coffee shop, they will open up their OWN shop, put their own touch on it, and make their own pastries.  In North America, more often, they opt to open a franchise- with most of the work alreayd done for them.  What  boggles my mind is how can someone, knowing their products are just frozen mush shipped in from 1000 miles away, truly have pride in what they're giving you.  It's like if I throw a dinner party based on K-D.  It's only about effeciency, consolidation, and money.

This goes for restaraunts and stores in general.  Sure... there are still home-own restaraunts and stores- I worked in one in New Jersey for over 2 years.  Sure, there are "chains" in Europe and Asia.  But, there are a much higher proportion of chains in North America.... just look at the dreaded strip malls that dot the two countries. 

I find that there is a cultural and spiritual emptiness.  By this I mean a few things.  America is largely devoid of art.  I mean, how many famous artists doyou know that are American or Canadian?  And by artists, I don't mean mass-producted musicians.... I mean painters/sculptors, etc.  If an archaeologist excavated our culture in 1000 years, what will they think?  People here are superficial. Everything has to be the biggest, the strongest, the prettiest, the best.  People just want more and more stuff- they don't really know why- but they want stuff.  It boggles me that so many people live on credit- money they don't even have- especially when income levels here are soo high.

Not to sound too ranting, but it just depresses me.  North America could be so much more interesting.... It's almost a little bit of every contient on earth.  It should be like the best of the world.... but it's not.  Instead of taking the best parts of all the contients (including Aboriginal north americans), they are paid merely paid homage in tacky way.  Chinese culture in North America is no more than really bad food.  Native American culture has been reduced to dream catchers and occasional pow wows.  African culture is a marginal, devient sub-culture.  They only civilisation whose culture is manifest is that of Europe... but even then, North America is not another Europe.  Nor should it be.... North America should be its own thing.  but what it is sort of a "Europe light".    

Alas, perhaps I'm being unfair.  After all, why am I being so judgemental on North America?  You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to.  I find that a lot of my friends- which ties outside of North America- tend to feel this way.  Of course, a lot of people are happy to live here.  This is just the way I hear.  As an aspiring anthropologist I study cultures across the world, and I've gotten to observe them in travelling to different places.  This is just my rant....