Friday, April 4, 2014


Associations with the South’s Favorite Protein Source (Prompt One)

ddddddddddddddddddxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOne of the main staples of the South in the area of cuisine is BBQ. Even right here in Augusta we have a world famous BBQ joint, Sconyer’s BBQ. This is a very stereotypical southern dish. Pork is a main staple of protein here in the South. Whenever my dad’s best friend comes to visit from Michigan, he always has to have a huge plate of BBQ before he leaves. This dish is clearly a southern staple. It’s not like you can go to New York and expect to eat at a BBQ restaurant.
BBQ is associated with the Deep South and the southerns that consume it. This cuisine may be thought of as the equivalent of the black man’s fried chicken in William-Forson’s: More than Just the “Big Piece of Chicken”. The Power of Race, Class, and Food in American Consciousness. I say that because in the article the “Big Piece of Chicken” is meant for a man of lower class (working class) that has no power in the work place but instead in the home (p.342-343). This is evident by the mother’s frantic display when the “big piece of chicken” is gobbled up by the children.
           BBQ could be thought of as the “Red Neck’s” dish. This dish is associated with lower class whites, particularly men with limited power. It can be argued that BBQ is not a man’s meal, but in my experience it is a man’s cuisine. My dad always wants to go to Sconyer’s or any other place that sells BBQ because he loves it. He is a working class citizen with a fondness of all things Southern. So he essentially fits the stereotype.

BBQ more than likely originated by similar means as fried chicken. In William-Forson’s article, she mentions that fried chicken was brought about as a slave meal (p.344-346). The slave owners had numerous chickens, which they would allow to run free (p.346).  The slaves would then take a chicken or two as their own (their masters had so many chickens, how would they notice if one was missing) (p.346). Pork may have been treated in a similar manner.

In the documentary Soul Food Junkies by Byron Hurt, pork is a common component of the food mentioned in the film. The film also mentions the slave origins of soul food and how that shaped African American southern cuisine. Soul food became a staple for the newly freed African Americans because it was cheap and what they knew how to make. The food may not have been good for you, but instead “good to you”. This seems to include BBQ as well.

So both fried chicken and BBQ have stereotypical roles attached to them in just about the same areas (except for race). But obviously black people do not only eat fried chicken, and white people do not eat only BBQ (white folks can put away fried chicken as well and vice versa). Both dishes are attached to lower class means because they are unhealthy, cheap, and have easy access. But one thing is for sure, BBQ and fried chicken are both very representative of the South and the stereotypes associated with the South.

2 comments:

  1. I think that is pretty funny that your father’s friend likes to have BBQ when he comes to visit. Is your father’s friend originally from the South and wants to eat the BBQ as a source of memory or does he just eat it to feel “Southern” because he’s visiting? I think this kind of relates back to our class discussion where we talked about the difference of availability of the resources vs the desire to have certain meals. Although I agree that the stereotype is that BBQ isn’t for upper class, I think it’s interesting that it’s still associated with men consumption because it is meat and meat is “manly”. I didn’t even consider linking pork back to slavery as chicken is but now that you have said that I could actually see that being true. Maybe there is research supporting or disproving that statement?

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is orginally from the south. It has a lot to do with the fact that he can't get "decent" BBQ in the north. It's not made the same way. I'm assuming in the article, if the rich let chickens run around why not pigs. I'm not a historian so I'm not sure how to find that info. It's not like it would be on pubmed or anything. But I'm pretty sure they could have treated other lifestock in a similar way. The slaves most likely wanted diversity on their menu too and if no one's gonna notice, why not take it.

    ReplyDelete