Send mail to us!
Visit other related sites!
UWF Home Page
African Americans in the South have higher rates of morbidity and mortality as the result of hypertension, heart disease, stroke, and certain rectal and stomach cancers than European Americans. While heredity plays a role in these problems they can mainly be attributed to a diet high in fat, sugar, and cholesterol. Why do African Americans continue to practice these foodways despite the knowledge that it may kill them? Do they even know the dangers of their eating habits? Are the eating patterns of African Americans in the South radically different from European Americans in the South? Dr. Tony Whitehead and a group of his students from the University of North Carolina asked some of these questions. Their findings suggest that the foodways of whites and blacks in the South are different and that many blacks continue to eat in ways that they know are unhealthy.
We propose that the findings in the Pensacola area will be the same and plan to do a parallel study to be certain. Next we hope to propose a way to improve some of these foodways so that African Americans will not continue to be affected in such great numbers as a result of diet-related diseases. In order to accomplish these objectives we will use background information provided by studies such as Dr. Whitehead's and will use techniques such as the ethnographic interview to gather information about the foodways of both African Americans and European Americans in the Pensacola area. From the data gathered we intend to determine the reasons for the continuation of unhealthy eating patterns in order to transform them.
Zoya: Well, most of our groceries were purchased at the grocery store. In fact, we did have chickens in the backyard. And I always cried when they killed the chickens. Basically the Sunday meat, poultry, was chicken. Every Sunday I think the menu consisted of fried chicken, collard greens or turnip greens, black-eyed peas and sometimes we'd get a little fancy and use the English finger carrot. But the pan of cornbread was always there. And then we used homemade ice cream. So the big deal on Saturday was getting the ice cream and putting it together and putting it in the freezer that you had to manually crank to freeze the ice cream.
Danny: So, what else about growing up? Did you all eat together? Was it like a rule in the house that at dinner time or certain days of the week everybody kinda had the family dinner?
Zoya: Well, my family was really small and I lived with my godmother, basically like a grandmother. I never knew my grandmother. My grandmother died in March of 42 and I was born in October 42, so this lady served as, you know, a surrogate grandmother for me. So it was, and she was widowed, so it was like just the two of us at home and we did eat together. Basically, not as much maybe as eating together as "Girl, you better eat this food. I work hard for this." So, you know, my day like in the morning when she'd wake me up for school she would have my bath water ready and while I was bathing then she would prepare the breakfast. And after I would finish my bath and get dressed then the breakfast was on the table and the two of us would eat together. And with the basic food groups for breakfast, you know, ??? grits, not hominy and of course the eggs and I just can't understand now why people just decide that eggs with the cholesterol and everything, you know I've made it 54 years and I don't have a cholesterol problem and I was raised on eggs. And I think on Sundays, Sunday morning was probably the big morning because we would go for the hot cakes and the thick cut pork chops and lots of butter and lots of syrup and that was like on Sunday. And, well, Monday through Saturday we you know basically had the quote breakfast foods with the grits, eggs, bacon, ham or sausage. Which all came from the pig. And I suspect that when people were doing a lot of farming and growing their own vegetables or raising their own cattle the pig was probably the most economical thing that people could use to eat. And as of today those of us who were reared that way still eat everything that the pig has to offer. And I think maybe the upper class were able to afford the beef, probably ate the beef... (tape transcription to be continued)...
Frankie: There were seven kids and my mom and dad, so we always ate dinner together. She would cook breakfast every morning. She was a cook. She worked in a restaurant. So she would cook breakfast every morning. We would eat dinner together every night. And you wanna know what types of foods? She cooked a big meal every night. Fried chicken, rice, potato salad, greens, turnip greens or collard greens something like that every day...every day. If we went out to eat it would probably be once like every six months. And then it would be like Kentucky Fried Chicken. That was the only place.
Amanda: Were you all expected to clean your plates?
Frankie: Are you talking about eating or washing the dishes?
Amanda: Eating.
Frankie: No not really. We never helped our mom cook.
Amanda: When did you learn to cook?
Frankie: When I was twenty years old when I cooked. Growing up I didn't cook because my oldest brother and my oldest sister...they would cook.
Amanda: So how did you finally end up learning?
Frankie: Just on my own...burning a lot of food up. I mean I would watch her, but I never got to cook growing up. She was a cook. She could bake good. She used to bake cakes and sell them. You know a lot of people knew her. And she was a good cook. But I never learned like from her. I mean I would see her cook. I guess I know her ways of cooking, but I never got to cook growing up.
Amanda: Do you cook much differently from her?
Frankie: Yes. Well, like now I cook fast foods...more like hamburger helper, tuna helper. My kids won't eat fried chicken. My kids won't eat pork chops. My son, he only eats hot dogs and hamburgers, or sloppy joes. Totally different from growing up. They won't eat like if I make potato salad, they won't eat it. Totally different.
Amanda: Why is it that you cook that way?
Frankie: It's quick. Yeah, it's quick and easy. And then, it's not wasted. If I cooked a big meal, it would go to waste.
Amanda: Do you all sit down and eat together now?
Frankie: No. Never. When I cook, they can eat when they're ready.
Amanda: Do you all go out to eat a lot?
Frankie: Yeah, about four times a week. Amanda: Is it all Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Frankie: No, we usually go to Morrison's twice a week, you know, and they get their vegetables there. And I usually let then choose a place, wherever they want to go.
Amanda: Could you evaluate the nutritional value of what you were eating growing up?
Frankie: I think it was very nutritious because we grew a lot of our own vegetables. And like the meats back then like our cousins down the street would have their own pigs and stuff like that. And at a certain time of the year they would slaughter the pigs and chickens. And this might sound horrible, but I didn't watch it. But they would do the chickens and the pigs and I don't think it was any of all this stuff they put in the foods now. So I think back then it was more nutritious. I'm not saying pork is good for you, but I would say back then it was more nutritious. Because back then I don't remember any of us getting sick, even the kids down the street. Nobody ever got sick, no colds, not like people today. I think like now a lot of stuff is from he foods.
Amanda: Do you think your diet was healthier than the one your kids have today?
Frankie: It's hard to say. She cooked with a lot of fats and stuff, so. We got more vegetables back then. Less fat, but more vegetables back then. I mean cause now if I buy a fresh vegetable my kids are like "what's that?" because they're used to cans.
Amanda: If your physician told that you needed to change your diet to improve your health, would you?
Frankie: Yes, I would. I would cut out all of the fats. Ribs, they're my favorite, but my kids won't eat them. My dad lives alone now because my mom passed away, but he cooks like that. He cooks like neckbone and rice or something like that or a pot of beans or something.
Amanda: Would he alter his diet?
Frankie: He wouldn't.
Amanda: Do you still see a lot of traditional foods being associated with African American culture?
Frankie: Yes. Like whenever we have a church picnic or dinner, yes. I mean you've got the collard greens, you've got the potato salad, I mean you've got the green beans with the big ham hock or something in it. I mean it's gonna be like that. There's a different. Because I went to a lot of white or Caucasian church dinners and it's totally different. They would have like chicken, they would have rice with nothing on it, plain rice, you know. They may try to make cornbread and the green beans would just be green beans. I mean no seasoning, lots of salt and pepper, I guess, but not full of meat.
Amanda: Do you think that's going to change with your children's generation?
Frankie: Yes, I do. In a way I think it's a bad thing. I think it's our culture, you know. 'Cause when I go to the grocery store with my kids and they see like ham hocks or a bucket of chitlins, I don't eat that, but they'll say like "ooh [yuck], what's that?" Or "don't get that." Or I'll just cook it, sometimes I'll cook it in greens, like the ham, the cut ham and they're like "ooh" 'cause they're just used to seeing ham, like lunch meat ham. So, I think it's a bad thing, 'cause it's their culture and my daughter will not get to cook that way. She'll make hamburger helper and cold cereal.
Amanda: So, do they eat at those church functions?
Frankie: Yeah, they do. Macaroni and cheese, they'll eat ham or chicken, something like that, or what I bring. I'll bring pasta salad, something like that. They'll eat mommy's food. But, no, I don't think they'll grow up cause I tell them what I grew up with and they're like "I'm not gonna eat that." You know, they won't even eat chicken and rice. I'm sure ya'll probably eat chicken and rice. They won't even eat that. Because they like a fast food, quick meal. When I was growing up it was like the fresh corn and my kids don't even know how to pull the little strings off the corn. They've never seen that before, so they wouldn't know.
Amanda: Are their cousins the same way?
Frankie: My sister, she still cooks. My older sister, she's thirty-eight years old and they have a traditional family meal, you know.
Amanda: So, you go over to her house?
Frankie: Yeah, and they like going over there 'cause she cooks cabbage and stuff like that, whereas I don't. And they'll go over there and they'll eat over there. Sunday dinner will be like a hamburger for us. A lot of people, a lot of black-African American they'll look down on that. At church they'll be like what are you cooking for dinner and I'll be like sloppy joes and they're like "sloppy joes?! It's Sunday" Cause everybody has a full-course meal. So the reason I think I'm like that is because I'm a single parent, I don't have a husband. When I was married, I used to cook like that. I used to have to cook a full meal. But I'm a single parent and I can do what I want and just cook what my kids like. I'll stop at the Tom Thumb and get them two hotdogs and I'm happy. I can go home and lay down or whatever. Now my sister, she will cook a meal every day.
Amanda: Does your sister work outside the home also?
Frankie: Yes.
Amanda: Is there anything you'd like to say before we end? About African American food or Southern food in general?
Frankie: No, not really. I mean I'm glad that I grew up like that because I think the African American can cook so many varieties of food. Not to put anybody down, but sometimes you get somebody who cooks and their food tastes so bland. You know I'm sorta proud of it.
END OF INTERVIEW...
* * *
The ethnographers role is to look interested and suggest a couple of turns toward the other side of the ballroom so that he can check the view from there.In the informal interview nothing is sacred. The environment is uncontrolled -- anything (or nothing) can happen. Additionally, if you have a list of questions, they are negotiable. Basically, the ethnographer is at the mercy of the informants and the location in which the interview is conducted. If all goes well, the ethnographer should be able to adjust to the situation and come out of the experience with some general foundational data.-- Michael Agar, The Professional Stranger
My expectations of the ethnographic experience were shattered after I had been in Zoya's house for about ten minutes. I never expected discomfort, nor did I ever consider that at some point in my life I would have nothing to say. On the other hand, by the time we left, I was unsure as to why we had bothered to conduct the interview in the first place. This isn't to say that our informant didn't provide good information. In fact, her information may have been a bit too good for me.
* * *
Through your control or through kismet, you now know where you want to go. The next problem is to read the literature.Before embarking on ethnographic research the social scientist must familiarize herself with the area she is going to study. The strategies vary. Some people choose to read the 'classics' and nothing more, others read all of the material that is available, still other s research through a combination of reading nonfiction, popular fiction, and viewing films. Whatever the case may be, the foundational research is considered a necessity for the ethnographer.-- Michael Agar, The Professional Stranger
Michael Agar, an anthropologist at the University of Maryland, complained in his book The Professional Stranger that his literature review before he began working with addicts was basically nonfunctional (Agar 25). The readings provided him with little or no insight into what being a junkie really was. In addition to this, Agar felt that many of the studies ignored questions that seemed obvious to him. Finally, it didn't seem as though any of his colleagues could agree on the failure status of heroin addicts.
The opposite was true for myself and my colleagues in our applied anthropology
project on southern African-American foodways. Our literature review consisted
of about twelve books and the majority of them contained the same basic
themes:
1) African American foodways in the south were influenced a great deal
by the traditions established during the time they were slaves.
2) the average African American diet consists of much more fat and
salt than the average American diet.
3) pork, pork, and MORE PORK.
I participated in two informal interviews for the project and was told
exactly what I had read. To my chagrin, I uncovered no earthshaking news
that would allow me to form a new hypothesis. I didn't even uncover a tidbit.
My first reaction was to be reassured; what I had read wasn't in vain.
However, I soon began to feel cheated. Why did I even bother doing ethnography
in the first place? Was it a waste of my time?
To return to Agar, he did eventually concede to the understanding that in order to write and speak with other professionals who work with addicts he did need some knowledge of available materials. If he had entered the treatment center without any background knowledge of their theories or practices, he would have been ridiculed. Additionally, I future that the reading gave him a few hints about what needed to be done in the area. For instance, he accused his colleagues of not providing an adequate picture of what "a junkie (was) all about" or of failing to provide reasons for what they called the "social-psychological failure" of the heroin addict (Agar 24). He could provide what was missing in their research.
I must admit that the reading did have some value for me also. The literature review enabled me to formulate questions and theories of my own. I would have wasted a great deal of time on pointless questions had I not read the literature. However, I still felt a sense of defeat because I was unable to add anything to the research that I had exposed myself to.
Maybe the question isn't whether or not we should do a literature review, but whether or not we should do ethnography at all. Agar says that the point of ethnography is "to create a social relationship within which an exchange of information occurs" (Agar 1). I will concede to the idea that a good representation of a social group is impossible without social contact. However, maybe we need to shift our focus.
Why was I even bothering to study a subject on which there is so much information available? If there were some inconsistencies between the sources of even controversy surrounding an issue, I would better understand. Since, however, the research I was exposed to was the same or at least complementary, I probably should have adjusted my concentration just a bit ... or a great deal. For example, I could have research the evolution of African American foodways -- many traditional foods and methods are being discarded for quicker and easier approaches. Or, I could have studied the social implications of these transformations -- many young, single mothers are harassed for not cooking in the traditional way (especially on Sundays). So why didn't I?
Admittedly, I believe it all comes down to EGO. I did my mandatory literature review, thought about what I had read, and decided that I could somehow get "better" information or develop more intricate hypotheses. In other words, I was acting like a 'know-it-all' undergraduate. Actually, I was also acting like a know-it-all Ph.D.
When Derek Freeman went to Samoa in the 1940's he began to challenge the findings of Margaret Mead. When he published his book (interestingly, he did this after Mead's death) he accused Mead of presenting false information. Basically, he said that she set out to prove a hypothesis and was willing to do so at any cost. What Freeman failed to take into consideration was something that all anthropologists, actually all people, know: things change. Freeman studied in Samoa decades after Mead did. A World War even separated their work. Didn't he expect Western influence to change the Samoans? Maybe his EGO kept him from doing so.
What exactly am I saying here? I guess my point is that there is a need for change in the field of anthropology. Ethnographers need not to be so concerned with making 'a name' for themselves by uncovering now information or formulating amazing new hypotheses. Instead, ethnographers should concern themselves with providing the most comprehensive ethnography of group possible. Unfortunately, this means working (gasp!) together. I know it sounds like a giant step from the current situation. However, as budgets become smaller and more grant proposals are rejected, more cooperation is necessary.
I concede that a system of checks is necessary because each ethnographer will bring his or her own biases to the field. Also, I agree that groups change over time and long-term research needs to be done and redone. However, there should be no accusations of lying or even misrepresentation on the part of ethnographers directed at other ethnographers. Also, we needn't attempt to prove an entire community of researchers wrong on an issue that has been studied recently and repeatedly over time with the same outcome.
Basically, anthropologists need to recall what many of us were taught in preschool: sharing and cooperation. Ethnographers should gladly share information and resources in order to accomplish a common goal. The input of each individual is valuable to the work as a whole.
|
Send mail to us! |
|---|---|
|
Visit other related sites! |
|
UWF Home Page |
|
Home |