China’s the place where “ethnicity” is most closely connected with food. Tell people what kind of food you like, and they’ll guess what province your parents or grandparents are from. And they’re not at all shy about pronouncing, oh, Cantonese like this, and Sichuanese like that, and Hunanese like the other thing . . .
(At least it’s that way in the Republic of China.)
I think the point is that saying those guys will eat rice and beans implies that they are Hispanic first and baseball players second. Same thing with suggesting you serve black players fried chicken or Japanese players sushi.
Why not just feed them pizza or hamburgers or steaks or whatever it is you normally feed your players? Treat them like baseball players not members of an ethnic group.
It’s not outrageously offensive to me, but it’s kind of distasteful. I don’t think we need to explain why mature people try to avoid stereotyping.
Except for comedians. But this guy was no comedian.
The worst offense had nothing to do with racism and simply that it was a lame, boring, unfunny comment.
I think the delivery is everything.
My fiance is from another country, and she teases me and says “You wouldn’t like it, it’s not burgers!” (because I’m an American). The joke is that I’m a VERY adventurous eater, and I love the food of her country.
But I am half black and I could easily get offended at a watermelon joke unless it was a good friend delivering it in a really good way (which has happened).
I don’t find the commentator’s line offensive, maybe he should have thought how it sounded a bit before blurting it out though. I think overall historical context probably matters to the person being stereotyped more… there isn’t much historical oppression for being “American” so American jokes I typically find funny.
Saying black people like watermelon isn’t offensive, even if it’s a dumb generalization (a) because not all black folk do, just like not all ____ people like any ____, and (b) because to black folks’ ears any watermelon jokes are interpreted as throwbacks to minstrel shows where lazy childlike negroes stole chickens and watermelons like it was irresistible catnip, which any reasonable person finds offensive and dehumanizing.
Watermelon has a lot of history as racist imagery in this country. You probably don’t mean it LIKE they did back in the day but it’s an understandable sore spot.
http://students.haverford.edu/kkoltunf/Ken/Religion_236_Web/Minstrelsy/Characters.html
References like this can be taken as offensive in the same way that all generalisations can be offensive - they take characteristics/traits/tastes which may (or may not) be be reflective of the group and apply it to the individual. In the same way, references to women drivers, smart Asians, white men not being able to jump, obese Americans, forgetful old people, Gallic flair, rude New Yorkers, nice South Africans, etc can be offensive.
Not that everyone in that group would take offense - that’s a whole new generalisation in itself 
Grim
The reason that it can be seen as offensive to connect a type of food to an ethnicity is because it is a form of racial stereotyping. I assume that when Rod Allen made the comment about rice and beans, it was a racist joke and although racist jokes can be true, they do still offend people. It’s unfair to judge peoples likes and dislikes on their ethnicity.
Still not getting why it’s stererotyping or offensive to say a Cuban or Dominican man may like the food native to their ethnic heritage.
I understand stereotyping over things like work ethic, intelligence, ability, appearance, etc can be offensive.
But to say that a Dominican guy might like rice and beans? It’s silly to say that’s offensive.
And for a color commentator in a baseball game to make the observation that the Detroit baseball team has a dozen players from Latin American countries doesn’t mean that he thinks of them second-class players. A few years ago all the talk was how many Russians the Detroit Red Wings had on their team. How is this any different? Is everyone just supposed to ignore the fact that the Tigers organization has spent a lot of time and resources scouting in places like the Dominican and Venezuela? Are we supposed to go so far out of our way as human beings to ignore ethnicity that we can’t even make this observation?
Making note of Latin American players on a team doesn’t set them apart as “second-class” baseball players. And then to make an observation about those players’ culture-- rice and beans are central to Latin American cuisine!-- it’s nuts to call that offensive.
Again, are we so hung up on “getting past our differences” that we can’t even mention them anymore? Is it really so offensive when an African-American (or white, or Asian, or green) announcer makes the observation that there are 12 players that all come from three nations in Latin America?
And again, I understand *negative *stereotyping as being offensive (based on ability, intelligence, appearance, etc)-- but FOOD? The stuff people like to put in their mouths and chew??? If I say “Mexicans like rice and beans,” am I going to be labled a racist or an asshole? How about if I say “African Americans like fried chicken and collard greens?” Now if I were to draw a cartoon of black people going all spazzy over a fried chicken wing-- I get it, that’s offensive. But to merely make an observation on the food of one’s culture? It seems like the PC pendulum has swung too far.
What if the Tigers’ announcer had instead said, “They need to get some Venezuelan and Dominican food on that the post-game spread in the clubhouse”?
Is that offensive too? Or is it isolating two ingredients of Venezuelan cuisine (rice and beans) that made the actual comment so offensive?
It depends on where they’re from. There are of course regional styles of cuisine. In Canada, we’re travelling to a region where we expect to starve, because the local cuisine is either battered and deep fried seafood or venison. In fact travel guides warn you about the local cuisine. However, it’s one thing to be talking about food and regional cultural influences on food, and another to be talking about BASEBALL then suddenly making a generalized remark about a group’s diet if it has no bearing on the sport or isn’t suited to the context of the conversation.
I do think players’ diets can be up for discussion, IF it actually relates to their performance or training regimen. For example Djokovic is having the tennis tournament season of his life right now, and his diet is being considered as one of the big reasons why he is finally reaching his full potential. Plus, the discussions are interesting, are drawing attention to gluten intolerance and are informative.
Ah, but you see - that’s the problem. Usually it’s NOT an “observation” it’s an “assumption.” And it’s an assumption based on the most superficial, impersonal elements.
I’m hispanic too - southwest U.S. heritage. If someone assumed I typically eat rice, beans, and tortillas based only on the way I look, they would be very, very wrong if not totally off-base. I would be annoyed that they made presumptions about my person based on what I look like rather than who I am.
OP: you’re applying waay to much blind logic to something which is purely emotion and racial consciousness nuance. I wonder how old you are.
To my raised-in-the-50s/60s ears it reads like this:
Saying they should put out rice and beans for their Latino players is really saying “They’ll need to put out some second-rate poor people food for those second-rate poor quality players of second-rate racial stock.” And the same code would apply if they were talking about any ethnicity other than 3rd generation white-bread-&-mayo US Caucasion.
That is standard coded meaning for any stereotype food comment. It’s a way to get in a racist dig while retaiing barely plausible deniability. The speaker can claim all day that they meant only the nicest things by it, but we all know what they really meant.
Maybe for people only in their 20s now, this code is unheard of and baffling. But it’s loud and clear and real to foks my age and older. Which is about 1/2 the US population.
There was a long period through the 60s through 80s where every adult was raised in an overtly racist era, but it was no lponger acceptable in most contexts to say the things that popped naturally to mind. So folks got real adept at almost saying it, and almost hearing it.
Of course it’s not offensive to say the typical diet in Cuba and Dominican Republic includes rice and beans. What’s offensive is to imply that they won’t be happy unless every given meal they eat includes rice and beans, as if that it’s the only thing they ever want to eat. There’s a world of difference between the fact that, say, an African-American family reunion will often include fried chicken and macaroni and cheese, and thinking that if you have your black friend over to eat, you have to provide those foods because he’s so unsophisticated that’s the only kind of food he likes.
I think the liberals have a list of ranked ethnicities to determine if it is offensive or not. So if you are at the very top of their list, people can joke about (e.g.) surströmming and nobody gets upset. In a sense you could say that the liberals are the real racists.
The rational reason I can see for people being offended by these kinds of comments is because it is painting everyone of a certain race/ethnicity with a broad brush and not treating them as individuals.
There doesn’t have to be any particularly hateful tone behind it. I could see a white person from the midwest being annoyed or offended if they were in a different country and people kept saying things about how they must like jello salad and ranch dressing BECAUSE they are white and from the midwest. Even if it’s not saying anything hateful about your race or ethnicity, it’s annoying when people think that just because of your skin color or origin that you are like everyone else from that background and not a person with unique likes and dislikes.
I don’t.
I’m 36, so take that as you wish. The announcer in question is a 52 year-old black man.
@RaleighRally: really? You’re taking it there?
@lavenderviolet: I understand how painting with a broad brush can be bad…in a negative context. Dominicans are dirty: bad. Dominicans like rice and beans: not seeing how that’s bad. It’s called Dominican food for a reason. Dominicans traditionally *eat *it.
I get it: We’re all unique and delicate flowers and stereotyping is bad. But food is a wonderful thing. It seems simply ridiculous and overly-sensitive to not be able to connect people from an ethnic group with the food that bear’s that ethnic group’s name.
I believe insulting jokes about the food of foreign cultures go back at least as far as Ancient Greece, and probably as far back as the development of different ethnic cuisines. Food is not automatically a neutral subject, far from it. It’s fairly common to insult members of a particular culture by associating them with food that is perceived by the speaker as disgusting, immoral (e.g. dog meat), or something only poor or unsophisticated people would eat. I note that your two examples:
Are foods that are not merely associated with people of a particular ethnicity, but poor people of that ethnicity.
Also, what **LSLGuy **said:
It’s not CONNECTING it that’s the problem. It’s the implication that Latinos only want to eat their traditional foods. In all seriousness, and not intending to be snarky, why is that so hard to understand?
My husband is Hispanic, and I can only imagine what he would think if we went to eat at someone non-Hispanic person’s house and they said “we made rice and beans for you! We know that’s what you people like!” I mean, seriously, you don’t see why that’s offensive?
I read the article linked in the OP and listened to the sound clip. While I don’t believe the remark that sparked the controversy was offensive, some of the attempts to justify/defend the remark go in an uncomfortable direction.
(This is the recording.) One announcer remarks on the number of Latinos in the lineup. There is a long pause. Another announcer lists off the names of the Latino players, including Miguel Cabrera. Rod Allen then makes his rice-and-beans comment by way of introducing a personal anecdote involving himself, Ramon Santiago and Miguel Cabrera, in which they saw each other in a hotel lobby and talked about their favorite restaurants/foods while on the road. Before Allen can tell the story, another announcer jumps in with “Ha, yes they are.” Whether this announcer thought Allen had told a joke, or he saw what was happening on the field and thought they wouldn’t have time for the whole story, I don’t know. Allen told the rest of the story during last night’s broadcast.
It seems pretty clear to me that Rod Allen’s remark referred to a specific incident that he had personally witnessed and was not meant as a generalization about an entire ethnic group. However, the OP makes six such generalizations in his first post.
When speaking about generalizations, I mostly agree with what LSLGuy said-- with the caveat that people of any ethnicity (not just “third-generation US Caucasian”) can and sometimes do look down on people from different backgrounds. You should hear how my Mexican relatives and my cousin’s Portuguese relatives talk about each other.
I think some uptight people need to lighten up. Just a bit.
That is all.
It’s condescending and patronizing. It’s a comment that was meant to be humorous at the expense of the players’ ethnicity. That’s not cool because that’s something the majority group (whites) can do but minorities can’t do back.
Some people think that different groups are equivalent in these situations along the lines of “hey if a white dude calls you a spic, why don’t you just call him a honkey?” but there are implicit differences in the status of the groups where ‘honkey’ could very rarely be as offensive as ‘spic’.
This isn’t the best example but let’s say you’re an American expat in Korea. You could get by perfectly fine without speaking a word of Korean. In fact I know severals expats that have for several years. Everyone will accommodate to your English to the best of their ability. But what if you a Korean immigrant in the States without knowing a lick of English? You go to a restaurant and try to order your food in Korean.
Superficially equivalent situations with vastly different outcomes. The American is obviously a member of the more dominant group. Again, not the best example, but hopefully you understand what I’m trying to say…