"This Food's Not Cultured Enough," or: The 5,999,998th Thing to Be Offended About...

I just...can't anymore.

My question is: when did we as an American society denigrate into nursing bruised egos and hurt feelings? Or, specifically: when did college campuses make a spontaneous transformation from institutions where students cared about higher education to places where spoiled, complacent numbskulls with a victim complex gripe, bitch and complain about every single little problem that floats its way into their little narcissistic bubbles? Newsflash, dear children: real life can be offensive. It seems we as a generation have forgotten the golden rule to dealing with things that rustle our jimmies: if you don't like something, don't do it/be around it/partake in it/etc. You'd think kids with a college education and a $30k a year tuition could grasp such an elementary concept.

But no. They're too preoccupied protesting about how the food served in the cafeteria is racist.

At least that's what's been going on at Oberlin College in Ohio. Student groups representing the different cultured populations of the student body are calling out Oberlin's dining department, and the catering service they use, of "a litany of offenses that range from cultural appropriation to cultural insensitivity."

Oh, look! Racism allegations are in the news. Please, show me something I haven't seen.

It goes even further: the African-American student union, ABUSUA, demanded that the dining hall start serving fried chicken once in a while, which apparently was unsuccessful. Many students wrote fiery editorial letters to the campus newspaper, demanding that the caterer, Bon Appétit Management Company, be fired and replaced with chefs who, in the words of one student, "have the respect and autonomy to cook the food they love."

Tomoyo Joshi, a Japanese exchange student, put forth the argument of food as cultural representation: "When you’re cooking a country’s dish for other people, including ones who have never tried the original dish before, you’re also representing the meaning of the dish as well as its culture. So if people not from that heritage take food, modify it and serve it as ‘authentic,’ it is appropriative."

Are...are you kidding me? Are you really serious with this crap? Cultural insensitivity? Because they maybe forgot to put orange sauce on the orange chicken? If they were really serious about such a rampant abuse of cultural appropriation, why have they not protested at franchised places like Panda Express, where, apparently, even Chinese people are split between revulsion and appreciation and where some people don't consider it authentic? Where are the passionate student unions with the picket signs then?

Yeah. I didn't think so.

At this point in time, I'm so used to seeing the news littered with things that people get pissed over that I'm practically waiting, watch in hand, to see when the next thing people get offended over settles in. What can we get pissed at next, folks? The air?

This dude put it best in one of his tweets I found quoted in the New York Times:

When you're defending the cultural authenticity of GENERAL TSO'S CHICKEN, you're a living Portlandia sketch.

— Fredrik deBoer (@freddiedeboer) December 19, 2015

Couldn't have put this better myself. You can't write this kind of insane, childish and downright stupid behavior for even the funniest of sitcoms.

In fact, this is what all this should be: funny. Hilarious. Side-splitting. All the level-headed people in the country should be rolling around on the floor, laughing until the veins in their neck burst. But I can't say that I can expect something like that due to the continued rise of the evil influence of -- dare I say it -- political correctness, that chokes the ever-loving life out of this country.

This is America now, folks: where people who may not fully prepare the rice and pepper steak to a T are guilty of committing the same egregious crime of those shallow animals (I hope they've died out) who once burned, lynched and tortured other fellow human beings because their skin color was different. Yes, definitely: there is a total, irrevocable connection between the two charges.

Gimme an ever-loving break.

But hey, I'll vouch on behalf of one thing these Oberlin nimrods didn't see fit to do: at least they haven't demanded that a professor or the dean resign from their position, as our diminutive, low-brain-celled, elitist friends at Yale have proudly done. So I must give these fellas credit in that department. Bless yer hearts, yew really are try-in'.

Let me go broad for a second. I really used to take great pride in our generation. In some instances, I still do. I don't fully buy into the bitter notion that this is, as Sorkin avatar Will McAvoy puppets, the "worst period generation period ever period!" But in these types of instances, it's hard to disagree with The Social Network scribe's old-guard news anchor. This type of pissant grumbling by the old folks is not a new phenomenon, but c'mon, when you get down to the basics of the situation, you're crying in your soup over food! (No pun intended.) And this is why all the adults think this country's on the 3:10 to Hell when our generation takes charge. You social justice warriors ain't doing us any favors with our generational reputation. You've probably given Time more fodder for a sequel article to this one.

Have we already forgotten the lessons in the well-justified and well-deserved open letter that the good Dr. Everett Piper issued to the Oklahoma Wesleyan student body? This ain't a daycare, it's a higher learning institution. You're supposed to be challenged, not coddled. And you're supposed to deal with the situation, not throw a temper tantrum masked by sit-ins and picket signs. So why don't you recognize that fact and go make use of the astronomical tuition you (or, more likely, your parents) shelled out by actually studying what you're passionate about. Because frankly, kiddies: this food protest is a waste of air and a waste of precious time.

It actually mentally hurt to read the New York Times article from whence this story came. After I briefly caught a glimpse of the upcoming story on the news before the channel was (unfortunately) changed, I had to Google the article in order to suspend the disbelief I had found myself in. But it only further boiled the cauldron of pity, disbelief, semi-hatred and just plain ridicule I had for the students that concocted such a miserable, headline-grabbing shrill protest. I instantly wanted to take to a public platform and scathingly denounce these simple-minded, blubbering brats for spewing drivel under the guise of advancing social justice and cultural sensitivity. In their mind, they think they're doing something good for society, when all they're doing is blowing a rusty old horn for a recital they hardly practiced for.

Of course, I can still lambast them, and I probably will. But after researching and writing this, the strongest emotion I have left is sorrow and pity. Sorrow for a time when a person's moral convictions become so sensitive and so twisted that the mere sight of a harmless, slightly-inaccurate dish of culturally traditional food can throw them into such a misplaced righteous anger.

You're getting upset over food; something that you will eat and that your stomach will ultimately break down and digest until it flows through your bowels and comes out as a nice, brown, neatly-compacted log of excrement. Food is meant for nourishment, not a beauty contest. Get over yourselves and your self-righteous, self-serving indignation.

And that's all the words I have for this spat. Go ahead and feel free to start a discussion in the comments.

On #CancelColbert

I use Twitter, and I'm not blind to any of the trends that come and go on this site. And as of currently, the Twitterverse is in a war of words concerning the hashtag #CancelColbert, referring to a Twitter campaign by activists wishing to have Comedy Central's staple news satire "The Colbert Report" removed for accusations of racism from its namesake host, Stephen Colbert.

So here's the basic rundown: in the latest episode of the show, Colbert made an attempt to mock Dan Snyder and his handling of the Washington Red Skins racism controversey. Snyder, the owner of the NFL team, has come under pressure from the Native American community to change the name of the team, as the term "redskins" carries racist undertones. This is something I don't disagree with, since you can just glance at the historical record of the 19th-century United States and see all you need to see when it came to relations between the American government/people and the Native Americans. Not a pretty thing.

In an attempt to make up for this heated debacle, Snyder has formed an organization called the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, which, on its site, is said that its mission is to "work as partners to tackle the troubling realities facing so many Tribes across our country." Some might see this as a step in the right direction. For Colbert, not so much. I'm assuming he saw it as a double-edged sword kinda thing, for Snyder to try and save his reputation by raising charity but not changing the name of the team. I think it sounds a little dubious myself.

Anyway, with that full context now in place, Colbert was attempting to satirize Snyder's efforts, but to many, he tripped up big-time. He followed up with this quote from that segment of the show:

"I am willing to show the Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever."

The exact same quote was tweeted by the official @TheColbertReport account (the actual tweet has since been deleted. This account is managed by the Comedy Central network; Colbert's personal Twitter handle is @StephenAtHome, and even he expressed shock at the former's using the quote). Many red flags were raised, and outspoken outrage was poured.

Suey Park, a writer and activist, took to Twitter with her first use of the now-widespread hashtag, calling shame to the way "comedians hide behind satire as an excuse to joke about things that aren't funny." Okay, agreed. Humor has its limits, and there's a fine line between jokes and insults that has been crossed many times, some with disastrous results.

But what's been used as collateral damage in her argument? White people.

To quote her first Twitter post directly: "#CancelColbert because white liberals are just as complicit in making Asian Americans into punchlines and we aren't amused."

Oh, it's the rhetoric that truly makes me disappointed. The icing on the cake was her statements during her HuffPost Live interview with host Josh Zepps:

"White men definitely feel like they’re entitled to talk over me. They definitely feel like they’re entitled to minimalize my experiences, and they definitely feel like they are somehow exempt and so logical compared to women, who are painted as emotional, right?" I believe she also went on to say that white men can't have valid opinions.

Here's where I draw the line. Those statements are nothing short of a personal attack and a grossly-exaggerated generalization placed on those who don't deserve it. I will agree to the fact that racism has been perpetuated by some white people. Just look at the 1960s, it's a veritable encyclopedia on civil rights struggles. Racism, and hate, in general, has been done by everyone, not just white people, but they seem to be the perfect scapegoat. But as times change and generations change, people change. Sure, there are still racists, and there will always still be racists. Hate will never be fully eradicated, and that's a sad truth. But there are more and more people who are on the side of justice and equality and will work to suppress the hate and promote peace in the world. And some of them are white; are you calling them racist as well?

I'm a white man. I don't talk over people. I share my thoughts but I also listen to the thoughts of others. I respect authority and those who are older than I am, when they deserve my respect. In some fields of study I know more than others, but there are many other things people are more experts at than I am. So, I wouldn't presumptuously call myself "so logical". I respect women and their accomplishments. So, no, her statements on HuffPost Live don't meet her generalizations of all "white men".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: not all white people are racists. Just like all police officers are not bad (that's another one going around) or all rich people are not corrupt and arrogant, these types of broad statements have no credence. It's sounds like nothing more than bombastic rhetoric to me.

I found this interesting quote on Facebook from Tae Yang Kwak, associate professor of history at Ramapo College of New Jersey:

"Is there such a thing as "white privilege?" Absolutely, and it is pervasive. Is there such a things as "white, male privilege?" Absolutely, and it is pervasive. Is every white man an idiot, incapable of valid reflection, analysis, or opinion? No. C'mon! Some of my best friends are white! (They are, but that was a joke.)"

I agree with Ms. Park's right to free speech; as an American, she is free to make her points and her opinions, and no one should minimize her importance and the importance of what she may say. But don't make loaded statements such as the ones she's been making, or be prepared to back those statements up. I will sit here any day and personally defend my honesty and my good character against any accusations I see made against me, perceived or direct. By lumping white people into her category of racist and indifferent, I suddenly become involved. And I will gladly explain myself.

I'm not a perfect person. I mess up from time to time, I make mistakes, I say things without thinking. I've been angry, I've been hypocritical and I've been wrong and I've hurt people close to me. But I own up to what I did, I say I'm sorry, I move on and I learn from my past. But that makes me human; just as human as Ms. Park and Mr. Colbert, and everyone else on planet Earth. But never have I held any racist feelings in my heart and I have never hated anyone because of the color of their skin. As Americans, and as citizens of the world in general, I believe everyone has the right and the chance at life, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. You, me, the neighbors, the guy down the block, the businessman, that guy at the bus stop, people in Japan, China, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain, America, everyone in the world...we all should have the chance to be who we want to be.

I'm a Christian, and I live by the Bible. Jesus commands to show love and do good, even to your enemies, and to be an example for Christ in the world. But I know I will continually trip and stumble, because even though I have salvation, I am still a sinner. But I try my absolute best in my life and go out of my way to be kind to others, and that's all I can offer.  And I've found some who don't like me, for good reason or not, but that's something I have to live with, because not everyone is gonna like who I am.

And I'm sure that there are many, many more here like me, with white skin, great personalities, honest ethics and strong morals that stand for justice and equality for everyone on this planet; the oppressed, the free, and everyone inbetween and outside. These are the type of people that don't deserve the label that Ms. Park has put on them. These are not people who are racists.

The original @ColbertReport tweet was really mishandled, and I don't think it should've been tweeted in the first place, at least not without proper and clear context. But making statements like the ones the Twitter activists were making in the name of advancing social equality using white people as collateral? That's hypocritical and makes them sound just as guilty as the people they are accusing of being hateful.