Sauce Wars: Racism or not racism?

[jack]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/news/scotlands-sauce-wars-charge-for-ketchup-in-edinburgh-leaves-customer-from-glasgow-with-chip-on-shoulder-8786768.html

Apparently Edinburgh normally eats chips with some sort of sauce, whereas Glasgow normally eats chips with ketchup.

A little while back, there was a fuss when an Edinburgh chip-shop proprietor had a bright idea to deliberately piss off Glaswegians by making fun of what they eat, and started charging a nominal amount for ketchup (but not sauce). Shortly, a peeved Glaswegian complained to the press that he felt racially persecuted.

Now, most people agreed this particular example didn't matter much either way. But that bothered me, because I thought it was very like many things that were unarguably illegal racial prejudice, and I thought it was important to try understand the difference, to be able to make such decisions more accurately when they _do_ matter.

So, why doesn't it matter?

"If it costs 25p more to make..."?

Yes, if. If it actually DOES cost more, then that's ok. But it's clear it doesn't, he just charged more because he wanted to make a humorous point.

"Glaswegian isn't a race"?

No. Discrimination against people because of their ethnicity, culture, religion, nationality, or non-country region of origin or domicile is bad for exactly the same reasons as racism, whether or not you think it ought to have a different word.

"It's just Glasgow, it's not like they were discriminating against [foreign nationality]"?

Not this alone. Discriminating against people from a UK city is certainly less common and hence less of an overall problem than discriminating against people for a foreign nationality, but AFAIK the general moral and legal principle is that you shouldn't discriminate against any nationality, just in case.

After all, if someone were not hired because of which city they came from, that would be a plainly legitimate complaint.

"It's just 25p!"?

Again, not by itself. If someone charged women 25p more for the same meal, that wouldn't be ok, even if the actual hardship were only small.[1]

"OK, a combination of "against a normally non-marginalised group" and "only a very small inconvenience" "?

I think this is the only sensible conclusion. I've a feeling it probably is illegal, but as long as it's not causing widespread problem, it's probably sufficiently low down it's better just to ignore it. There are plenty of other cases where equality legislation probably should be used but isn't that should get first dibs.

[1] Come to think of it, how do clubs and dating sites get away with saying "women free entry"? It's not a big injustice, but I wonder why it's legal -- if there's a clause allowing discrimination in the non-prevailing direction, or if everyone just agrees not to make a fuss about it?

Comments

[fluffymormegil]

Regarding the clubs: The female attendees aren't complaining (free club! cheap drinks!) and neither are the male attendees (lots of drunk women).

Anyone who would complain, probably wouldn't want to go to such a blatant meat-market in the first place.

[jack]

Well, I wouldn't be surprised that someone complains; eg. someone who genuinely likes dancing and doesn't want to go on the heterosexual pull. But nor am I surprised that most people are happy with the status quo, and anyone who isn't doesn't think that suing to get in is likely to be something they'd actually enjoy.

[ofearthandstars]

It's tricky, because it seems to be an issue of making fun of an action of (presumably some) Glaswegians, and not necessarily making light or charging more for an inherent part of their being/ancestry/culture. (I assume that Glaswegians do not define their identity by their affinity/lack of affinity for sauce.)

Then again, if you look at it as a "lifestyle" discrimination, then it could be mirrored to discrimination against LGBT individuals...(although being LGBT is also an inherent part of someone's identity, there remains societal stereotypes that it's a chosen identity, which I think makes it easier for the oppressors to try to justify their oppression).

Hopefully this makes some sort of sense.

[jack]

Hm. It was presented as, "ketchup is the norm in glasgow and sauce is the norm in edinburgh" in which case (if it wasn't so trivial) it looks like a clear case of indirect discrimination. But it does depend how prevalent it is.

[ptc24]

I have the stock phrase "indirect discrimination with direct intent" for these occasions - the intent is really very direct indeed here. Now normally I'm one for saying "oh, be sensible" about indirect discrimination, but this time, I think the Glaswegian guy has good reason to be pissed off. Quite how that does, or should, translate into law, is another question, as is the question of what the best use of people's time is, how the Glaswegian should have described things, etc. But I'd be quite happy with branding the chipshop owner as an incivil jerk, as having behaved just like a smirking bully, and with going out of my way to get my chips elsewhere.

[gerald_duck]

To me, the main message from all of this is that the grey areas can be very large and subtle.


Consider another real-world example: the excellent Haymakers pub will do me a margherita pizza without tomato but with added parmesan. This substitution costs them nothing, but they (sometimes — it depends on which bartender I get) charge me an extra pound anyway. Even though I request the substitution because of a food intolerance. Clearly this is no big deal and I gladly return week after week, but is it actually a form of disability discrimination?

Alternatively, the Saffron Brasserie serves balti dishes with a nan bread. If a customer asked for chips instead of nan and they charged extra, would that be racist? (Though they do serve chips, I've never seen anyone try, so don't know their actual reaction.)

Or: The Free Press prohibits mobile phones. Does this preserve the ambience, or does it discriminate against the demographic that would use a mobile phone in a pub? (Conversely, does someone putting ketchup on chips in an Edinburgh chippy damage the ambience? What things can one legitimately encourage or discourage as part of an establishment's image/theme/mood/atmosphere/whatever?)

Or: I know pubs that sell only real ale, no lager, with the acknowledged intention of excluding the lager-drinking demographic. Is that OK? What if they're specifically hoping to exclude members of the traveler community?

Or: On what basis is a pub allowed to make the decision to provide, or not to provide, an area where children are welcome? Or a smoking shelter?

Or: an American walks into a bar in Edinburgh and asks for a scotch with ice. Is it unacceptably racist to refuse?


Looking at the original example a little more, it's clear that many people seek to make a qualitative distinction between things people "can't help" and "lifestyle choices". I know that the issue has fascinated people in relation to sexuality, for starters. Presumably, if such a distinction were being made, "born in Glasgow" would be "can't help", but "still living in Glasgow" and especially "eating chips like a Glaswegian" would be "lifestyle choices".


On balance, I don't think "we", the social charter and laws of the land, should stop the chippy from charging extra for ketchup. That is itself an intolerance. And in general, I feel the regulatory touch should be very light on small traders, grading up to extremely firm on the shoulder of large companies with monopolistic positions: provided there are plenty of other chippies in Edinburgh, we should let that one be as prejudiced as it pleases then allow it to live or die by the reputational consequences.

In terms of marginalised groups, it's pretty clear the chippy wants to uphold the Edinburgh chip topping and feels some kind of threat of cultural encroachment from ketchup. Are Glaswegians being marginalised, or is a marginalisation of Edinburgensian tradition being righted?

More broadly, a desire to belong to a cohesive social group, a tribe, is a strong aspect of the human condition and by its nature demands at least a smidgen of social exclusion. I'm wary about arguments from human nature because it's also clearly human nature to settle disputes with big, sharp stones, but is this actually something we can and should wean ourselves from?

Prevent abuses of dominant positions for sure. Disdain prejudice masquerading as social cohesion. But in a case like this, my response is a low-key "Tsk. I hope the chippy recognises that he's not better than ketchup-users, just different."