...Figures of Orality...

1.)  How does food become the center of power relations between master and slaves?


                     In the selection, food and power were closely related. It was there that "food" became the metaphor for "slaves" and those who have this "food" in abundance (the white people) are the "masters" or slaveholders. The Black women slaves were basically treated in an inhumane way. The slaveholders can do whatever they want to these women (e.g. forcing them to eat dog food, monitor their every move, spewing on their food, sexually abusing them, etc). So it seems that the "masters" are the all powerful ones.
                But, on the other hand, there was the grandmother. She was the one that nourished some of those White people; She was the one that cooks food for them; She was the one that makes their clothes. This kind of dependency of the White slaveholder to this Black woman slave makes her powerful herself. The nourishment that sustained this White slaveholder is from a Black woman slave. And, the slaveholders are afraid of this "power" that their cook or wet nurse or slaves, in general, has on them.
               So, food in this selection is the center of the power relations. One is the power to be oppressive and the other to nourish. There is a power struggle between these two.


2.) How is food associated with a mother?


               Being a pregnant woman is no easy task. A pregnant woman must eat (healthily) for herself and for the child that she is carrying.   Then, after giving birth, she must breastfeed her child. Feeding her child with her milk could have different meanings but it is essentially giving the child a chance to have a life or giving life itself. In the case of the Black woman slaves, they are nourishing a child that is not their own (and perhaps feeding a child of her own at the same time). Or in some scenarios in the selection, it is associated with the abuse of the slaves. All in all, food can have a variety of meanings to a mother. It can be good or bad or both. 

"Do Nations Express Themselves in their Foods?"

The main idea:

              That a nation's food or cuisine reflects the nation's people-- their lifestyle, their culture, and their history-- and the nation itself.

Supporting Points:

• Firstly, comparing North Americans and some Europeans to Arabs (in terms of everyday eating), we can say that Americans love fast food because it doesn't take much time to eat while Arabs eat more at a leisurely pace.
• Secondly, in preparing food, Americans like it fast and easy while Middle Easterners and some parts of Spain like to cook it slow.
• From the article, it seems that the Moroccan tradition of eating with their hands from common dishes is still very much alive. As a tribute to their forefathers and their past.
• Another, is the mixture of  Mexican personality-- a mix of Arab, Spaniard and native American.
• And what we eat may be correlated with how we feel with our lives-- just like what the Bulgarians and Cubans showed. (This is from the article)
• In Malaysia, where it can be seen that the mixture of British, Arab, Chinese, Thai, and other influences has lead to the evolution of Malaysians. They have become adaptable to many things. It helped shaped them as people and as a nation..