Accusations against minority communities regarding their eating and drinking habits have long been a shorthand for signaling that they don’t belong in America. This troubling practice resurfaced during Tuesday’s presidential debate when former President Donald Trump echoed a false claim about the Haitian immigrant community in Springfield, Ohio. Trump repeated an unfounded allegation, previously spread by his running mate JD Vance, that Haitian immigrants were stealing and consuming dogs and cats, the beloved pets of their American neighbors. The claim gained enough traction that local officials were compelled to refute it, stating there was no credible evidence to support such accusations.
Such food-related slurs are far from new. In the late 1800s, Chinese immigrant communities on the West Coast faced similar scorn as they began arriving in larger numbers. These disparaging remarks extended to other Asian and Pacific Islander communities like Thai and Vietnamese in subsequent decades. As recently as last year, a Thai restaurant in California became the target of such stereotypes, causing the owner so much distress that they had to shut down and relocate.
Paul Freedman, a history professor at Yale University, states that these accusations insinuate that the targeted groups are engaging in behavior that violates basic human norms, thereby marking them as “other.” By accusing Chinese immigrants of eating foods Americans found repulsive, they were further marginalized.
Ethnic food criticisms have also been directed at other immigrant communities. Newly arrived Italians were derided for using too much garlic, while Indian immigrants faced scorn for their use of curry powder. Even longstanding minority groups are not immune to these racist stereotypes. Mexicans have been insulted with remarks about beans, and African Americans have faced derogatory comments about fried chicken and watermelon.
Amy Bentley, a professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University, explains that every ethnicity has been disparaged based on their traditional foods. Food is deeply intertwined with culture, serving as both sustenance and a ritualistic symbol. Whether it’s a birthday cake or an anniversary meal, food is integral to human life and can either unify or divide people based on cultural differences.
The method of eating can also attract ridicule. Using hands or chopsticks instead of forks and knives, for instance, has been a source of mockery. This bias can extend to class differences, where poorer communities that couldn’t afford elaborate table settings or expensive ingredients were looked down upon for their simpler, yet necessary, dietary choices.
This kind of food-based disparagement often finds its way into contemporary events. During the Second Gulf War, Americans upset with France’s opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq began calling french fries “freedom fries.” In both World Wars, Germans were derogatorily referred to as “krauts,” a reference to traditional sauerkraut.
Food-related insults existed even during the push for “100% Americanism” in the early 20th century. Donna R. Gabaccia, in her 1998 book “We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans,” highlighted how Italian families eating spaghetti were seen as unassimilated.
Despite an expanding American palate, food stereotypes persist. Immigrant communities have introduced diverse ingredients to American grocery stores, and restaurant culture has exposed diners to a variety of global cuisines. Yet these culinary contributions haven’t necessarily led to greater tolerance.
As Bentley points out, immigrants bring their food traditions with them, maintaining these practices to preserve a sense of family and community. For example, Haitian cuisine in New York City uses ingredients like goat, plantains, and cassava, enriching the culinary landscape.
Trump’s claim that Springfield immigrants were eating pets plays into deep-seated cultural biases. Although American tastes have diversified, food-based stereotypes and insults remain pervasive, whether based in reality or entirely fabricated.
Freedman cautions against assuming that culinary diversity equates to cultural tolerance. He notes that people can enjoy Mexican food yet still support restrictive immigration policies, illustrating that an appreciation for foreign cuisine does not necessarily translate into broader acceptance.
