Jesús Contreras tells the story of the first time he traveled to Peru, “many, many years ago,” he notes, and was served brown sugar with his coffee. “The professor I was accompanying looked at me and said: ‘This is typical of third-world societies.” In recounting the anecdote Contreras, a professor of food anthropology, is attempting to explain that what the ideologization of food is really centered on is the society in which we live. In the 1980s, when Spain was striving for modernity above all else, white sugar was sought-after: a purified, processed, manufactured product. “But today we don’t know what we are eating,” he says. “That is why natural produce, recently harvested and unmanipulated, is so valued. In principle, foodstuffs do not carry any ideology, that is obvious, but they can be converted into a symbol.”
As such, perhaps it is more accurate to say that we eat what we are, rather than we are what we eat. As an example, over the course of 2022 someone with a very rightist political sympathy will eat more steaks that ever before, in support of the livestock industry. If someone argues that it is one of the biggest greenhouse gas-producing industries on the planet, the carnivore will retort that is an invention propagated by globalist progressives who want to push the sustainable development goals of the UN’s 2030 Agenda while they order a coffee and a pastry. In the same way, panela and sourdough bread with crushed avocado are considered food for mellifluous urbanites.
Following the same line of argument, it has to be supposed that the 326,000 votes received by the Animalist Party Against Mistreatment of Animals (PACMA) in the 2019 congressional elections in Spain were cast by vegans. “But not all vegans are animalists,” notes Contreras. “Many of these movements are transversal. Ideologizing a dietary `preference is a way of discrediting it.”
Russian salad, a popular dish in Spain, became ideologized when it was rebaptized Kiev salad, as a declaration of intent after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. If it is on the menu as Kiev salad in a restaurant, it is not necessary to hang a Ukrainian flag over the door to know which side of the war the chef is on. It is not the first time that Russian salad, which was invented in the 19th century by a Belgian chef, has been subject to a rebranding. During the Franco regime in Spain, it was renamed National salad or Imperial salad. And it is far from the only dish that has been through some nomenclature-based ups and downs. In 2003, France declined an invitation from the United States to join the Coalition of the willing that would invade Iraq. The three restaurants inside the US Capitol building in Washington, DC, decided to rebrand French fries in a more patriotic way, introducing the world to freedom fries. “It is a small but symbolic demonstration of how disgusted we are with the French, who claim to be our allies,” said a Republican congressman at the time. The French Embassy in the United States merely stated that, in fact, French fries were a Belgian invention.
It can also prove to be a double-edged sword. During the two World Wars, German soldiers were commonly known as Krauts, a derogatory term stemming from sauerkraut, the traditional German dish consisting of sour cabbage. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, experimental rock groups in West Germany adopted the term with pride to give birth to the krautrock movement, and to differentiate themselves from what Anglo-Saxon bands were doing. To date, it remains the only musical movement named after a vegetable.
“The symbolization of food takes place at a given time and in a specific context,” says Contreras. And it is not always a negative one, the professor stresses. “The most symbolized foodstuff at a global level is salt. It is a preservative that prevents food going off and in Japan, Guatemala, Africa and parts of Europe it represents purity, friendship, spirituality and the fight against evil.”
It is an example of the virtues of a nutrient being imbued with symbolic meaning. But whether or not a foodstuff possesses nutritional values or defects is of little matter when it comes to ideologizing it. Now-defenestrated Spanish conservative leader Pablo Casado felt obliged to defend beet sugar during an election campaign in the agricultural region of Castilla y León. “Sugar beet has been under attack. The difficult years it has been through, only for people to now say that sugar is poison,” the former Popular Party leader said. Because as everyone knows, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller, first they came for the sugar beet, but I did not speak out – because I was not a sugar beet…
Britney Spears responds to ex-husband’s ‘hurtful’ claims that her children don’t want to see her | Culture
Singer Britney Spears responded on Sunday to claims made by her ex-husband Kevin Federline about her relationship with their two children, Sean Preston, 16, and Jayden James, 15.
In an interview which will be aired on ITV news, Federline said that the two teens had not seen their mother for months. “The boys have decided they are not seeing her right now. It’s been a few months since they’ve seen her. They made the decision not to go to her wedding,” he said, as reported by The Daily Mail.
In June last year, Spears married personal trainer Sam Asghari. The ceremony was attended by personalities such as Donatella Versace, Madonna, Paris Hilton, Drew Barrymore and Selena Gomez, but not her closest family or children. After the wedding, Spears and Asghari bought a house, valued at $10 million, near Federline’s home.
Federline, a former dancer, had a tumultuous romance with Britney Spears in 2014. The two met while recording a music and started dating. They were soon engaged and married just three months later. But the pair divorced two years later, citing “irreconcilable differences.” Federline has since married volleyball player Victoria Prince, with whom he has two daughters.
In the interview, Federline blamed the alleged fallout between Spears and her children on the singer’s Instagram account, which often features revealing photos. “‘Look, maybe that’s just another way she tries to express herself,’” Federline explained as what he has said to his sons. “But that doesn’t take away from the fact of what it does to them. It’s tough. I can’t imagine how it feels to be a teenager having to go to high school.”
Federline also spoke about the controversial legal conservatorship that gave Spears’ father, Jamie Spears, complete legal control over her finances and day-to-day existence from its signing in 2008 to its end in November last year. According to the former backup dancer, the conservatorship “saved” the singer. “This whole thing has been hard to watch, harder to live through, harder to watch my boys go through than anything else,” he said in reference to the process to end the guardianship.
But Spears has denied Federline’s “hurtful” claims. “It saddens me to hear that my ex-husband has decided to discuss the relationship between me and my children,” wrote Spears. “It concerns me the fact that the reason is based on my Instagram … it was LONG before Instagram … I gave them everything. Only one word: HURTFUL.”
The singer added that her mother advised her to give her children to Federline while she was under the conservatorship.
Spears’ new husband Asghari also rejected the claims. “There is no validity to his statement regarding the kids distancing themselves and it is irresponsible to make that statement publicly. The boys are very smart and will be 18 soon to make their own decisions and may eventually realize the ‘tough’ part was having a father who hasn’t worked much in over 15 years as a role model.”
Margot Robbie’s self-confessed ambition has made her the highest paid actress of the year | Culture
Self-doubt is Margot Robbie’s greatest motivator, and competes with ambition in the Australian actress’s psyche. She couldn’t believe her own eyes when she first saw herself on a giant ad for the Pan Am TV series in New York’s Times Square. “I still have the photo,” she told EL PAÍS a few years ago, somewhat wistful for the days when she was still a nobody. The script of The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), the Martin Scorsese film that put her on the map, touted her as “the most beautiful blonde in the world,” but she didn’t believe the hype. “I remember saying to a friend, ‘I haven’t worked in six weeks.’ I’m sure there’s nothing out there for me,” laughed Robbie. But Hollywood didn’t share her skepticism. In July, Variety magazine ranked Robbie as the highest paid actress of the year when her US$12.5 million salary for the upcoming Barbie movie was announced.
Margot Robbie may be this year’s highest paid actress, but 17 men made even more money, led by Tom Cruise who was paid US$100 million for Top Gun: Maverick. Her Barbie love interest, Ryan Gosling, was paid the same as Robbie, even though she has the titular role, more evidence that pay parity in Hollywood is far from being a reality. Robbie ranked ahead of Millie Bobby Brown (US$10 million for the Enola Holmes sequel); Emily Blunt (US$4 million for Oppenheimer); Jamie Lee Curtis (US$3.5 million for Halloween Ends); and Anya Taylor-Joy (US$1.8 million for Furiosa).
Robbie’s misgivings about her career aren’t shared by other industry giants. Martin Scorsese compared her to Carole Lombard for her comedic genius, Joan Crawford for her toughness, and Ida Lupino for her emotional range. He described Robbie as having a surprising audacity, and recalls how she clinched her role in The Wolf of Wall Street by stunning everyone with a tremendous, improvised slap of Leonardo DiCaprio during her audition.
Robbie showed the same boldness when she lobbied director Quentin Tarantino for another role opposite DiCaprio in Once Upon a Time in… Hollywood (2019). She sent the director a letter telling him how much she admired his films, especially her all-time favorite, True Romance (1993). The letter probably wasn’t necessary, as Tarantino already had the I, Tonya star in mind to play Sharon Tate in his new movie, describing her to EL PAÍS as an actress with a visual dynamism and personal qualities that you don’t see every day.
Robbie has wanted to work in movies ever since her start in Neighbours, the long-running Australian TV series that is coming to an end after 9,000 episodes and 37 years on the air. “Of course I’m ambitious. My career motivates me. I came to the United States with a plan, and I’m always looking ahead,” she told us. Even as a child growing up in Queensland (northeastern Australia), Margot Elise Robbie displayed her business smarts and drama queen chops when she decided to sell all her brother’s old toys from the sidewalk in front of the family home.
She jokes about her childhood, but part of that little girl always comes out in the wide variety of characters she plays. She has had all kinds of roles in little-known films like Suite Française and Z for Zachariah, and also in box-office hits like Suicide Squad and Birds of Prey. She won Oscar nominations for playing driven women in I, Tonya (2018) and Bombshell (2020). “Yes, many of the women I’ve played share my ambition – this is a tough industry. But I’m full of doubt like anyone else. You never know how things will turn out,” she said.
Seeking more control over her films, Robbie founded production company LuckyChap Entertainment in 2014 with her husband, British filmmaker Tom Ackerley, and some friends. She hopes to use LuckyChap as a vehicle for herself and other actresses, as she did with Promising Young Woman starring Carey Mulligan, a black comedy thriller film that won writer/director Emerald Fennell an Oscar for best original screenplay. “Margot is an extraordinary person,” said Fennell. “That’s why she’s doing so well as a producer who is determined to try different things and give women a voice.”
Robbie met British assistant director Tom Ackerley on the set of Suite Française in 2013. They began a romantic relationship the next year and moved in together right after attending their first Golden Globes gala for The Wolf of Wall Street. Married since 2016, the couple and co-workers in LuckyChap have a bright future ahead, judging by all the work that is piling up for Robbie. In addition to Barbie, she will appear in Amsterdam, directed by David O. Russell; as silent film star Clara Bow in Babylon, directed by Damien Chazelle; and has a role in Wes Anderson’s Asteroid City. As if that wasn’t enough to keep Robbie busy, a remake of Ocean’s Eleven awaits her; she will play opposite Matthew Schoenaerts in the post WWII drama, Ruin; produce a remake of Tank Girl; and play a female Jack Sparrow in another installment of Pirates of the Caribbean. Surely Margot Robbie doesn’t have any more doubts about her career.
Salem’s last witch regains her honor | Culture
As statues of slave owners and slave traders continue to fall in the United States, the embers of the bonfires that burned women accused of committing spells and witchcraft are also being extinguished. In the umpteenth revision of history to try to exonerate the victims, the most recent episode concerns the last official Salem witch, Elizabeth Johnson Jr., from the massive 1692 and 1693 trials in the English colony of Massachusetts. Thanks to the initiative of a middle school teacher and her students in Andover, located in the same county as Salem, her spirit can now roam free. The enthusiastic students began the vindication process in 2020 and persuaded Massachusetts state senator Diana DiZoglio (D), who took up the cause and pushed for Johnson’s pardon, which was announced last week.
It has taken 329 years for Elizabeth Johnson Jr.’s name to be cleared definitively. She was the last of the Salem witches to be exonerated. While Johnson was spared a death by hanging, she was stigmatized until she died at 77, an uncommonly long life for the time. Historians say that Johnson showed signs of mental instability and was single and childless, all of which were signs of witchcraft during that period. She pled guilty before the court of inquisitors. Almost 30 members of her extended family were also implicated, as if witchcraft were contagious, hereditary, or both. Johnson, her mother, several aunts and her grandfather, a church pastor, were tried as well. According to historian Emerson Baker, the author of a book about the Salem witch trials, her grandfather described Johnson to the judges as a “simplish person at best.” Most likely, the judges would have equated “simplish” with different during that superstitious and pre-scientific period.
The fact that Johnson didn’t have any descendants deprived her of anyone to vindicate her good name, as relatives of the other defendants did. The first attempt to do so happened at the beginning of the eighteenth century. Then, in the 1950s, Massachusetts passed a law exonerating those found guilty, but it failed to gather all the names. A 2001 attempt at justice excluded Johnson because, after her conviction in 1693, she was formally presumed to be dead (executed).
The social hysteria against everything that deviated from the norm, against the minimal exercise of free will, was implacable against women, as Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible (the playwright adapted it for the big screen in 1996) and recent variations remind us. The theme lends itself very well to artistic creation, but in real life it amounted to opprobrium for those who suffered it and represented a cause for scorn among puritans.
Salem was more than a witch trial. According to historians, it was a collective exorcism fueled by a puritanical inquisition based on paranoia and xenophobia, a gratuitous auto de fe that unleashed people’s worst instincts: fear and the human tendency to blame others for one’s own misfortunes. At least 172 people were indicted in the 1692 trial. About 35% confessed their guilt and were spared the gallows; according to sources, around twenty insisted on claiming their innocence and did not escape that fate. The rest of the detainees were acquitted or sentenced to prison. The Salem witch trials represented a collective bogeyman through which one can foresee the later threat of the Ku Klux Klan. It is hard not to wonder what bonfires would have burned today on the pyre of social media and extreme polarization.
The great Salem witch hunt can be re-read through the prism of gender. As the adage goes, se non è vero è ben trovato (Even if it is not true, it is well conceived). Witches, like those in Salem and the woman in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel The Scarlet Letter (made into a film in the 1950s), were demonized for going off the rails. The dominant society’s puritanical stance against any kind of heterodoxy or freestyling, against rebels with or without a cause, led people to be targeted for dressing exotically by puritanical standards or for daring to drink at a tavern, a sacrilege for the morals of the day. It’s not difficult to draw a straight line from the bonnet of a witch on the gallows to the handmaid’s white bonnet in Margaret Atwood’s novel: all were women who were demonized, objectified, and scapegoated for deeper ills.
Beyond gender, other historians emphasize the socioeconomic dimension of the Salem witch trials, which combined a deep-seated inequality with racism, the United States’ original sin since well before the Declaration of Independence. The trials targeted colonial society’s most vulnerable during a period of economic instability that unleashed fierce rivalry among Salem families. According to historian Edward Bever, society was permeated by interpersonal conflict, much of it stemming from competition over resources. People did whatever they could to survive, from physical aggression to threats, curses, and insults. One of the first women accused, Sarah Osborne, was a poor widow who dared to claim her husband’s land for herself, defying the customary laws of nature, which granted the inheritance to sons. The accusation of witchcraft ended Osborne’s claim. Tituba, an indigenous slave, was accused of being a witch because her racial origins differed from the norm. Sarah Good was also poor, but she defended herself against the humiliations of her neighbors, which led her to the gallows; her daughter, Dorothy Dorcas Good, was Salem’s youngest victim: she was arrested at only four years old and spent eight months in prison.
Since then, history has not changed the fact that vulnerable women pay the price for circumstances beyond their control. That the Puritans of the time considered women—the evil heirs of Eve —prone to temptations such as the desire for material possessions or sexual gratification was only an added factor. Poor, homeless, and childless, these women in the shadow of society’s dominant morality were fodder for the gallows. But Elizabeth Johnson Jr. didn’t just manage to save her life; 329 years later she recovered her honor as well.
Britney Spears responds to ex-husband’s ‘hurtful’ claims that her children don’t want to see her | Culture
Lego releases Atari Video Computer System set • The Register
Race against time to rescue ‘girl trapped inside’ house reduced to rubble in massive gas explosion
The 1915 Armenian Genocide and its Russophobic Origins
What’s artificial intelligence best at? Stealing human ideas | Technology
The Religious Roots of Russia’s Mistrust towards the West
Technology7 days ago
10 collaboration tools that are essential for start-up teams
Technology6 days ago
Digital Hub expected to operate ‘at least until the end of the decade’
Technology1 week ago
Instagram rolls back some features that make app more like TikTok
Global Affairs1 week ago
In Spain, a jury decides that a young man’s suicide was actually homicide | International
Current1 week ago
Amber Heard sells home she bought in 2019 for $1.05m after being ordered to pay Johnny Depp $8.3m
Technology4 days ago
Gaming sector cyberattacks rise by 167pc in one year, Akamai says
Culture1 week ago
Motomami: Rosalía: the accessible yet groundbreaking artist | Culture
Culture7 days ago
Renaissance: Beyoncé and the art of online discretion | Culture