Taste the rainbow

» Why gimmicky-coloured food should stay out of your mouth

Elliot Chan Opinions Editor 4 ‘we, S opinions@theotherpress.ca

%

n honour of Halloween,

Burger King grilled up the spooky Black Whopper. Brilliant. Horrifying. Like green beer during St. Patrick’s Day or wacky-coloured eggs on Easter, changing the hue of food is nothing unusual. Putting aside what the Black Whopper does to our excrement, I cannot ignore this lame marketing attempt.

Colour is not innovation,

and rarely does it enhance flavour. Remember in 2013, when Apple released the iPhone 5C? Colour was the newest design update, and they made a big deal out of it—even though the majority of people who have a smartphone have a case

: food of another colour was late : in my childhood. I was young

: and still impressionable, and

: Heinz EZ Squirt Ketchup caught : : my attention the way a bug : would when it flies into my face. : : This was in 2000, so I assume : you might not remember, but : Heinz EZ Squirt Ketchup was : the famed condiment company’s : : attempt to appeal to a younger : demographic. Yes, imagine it now: green, purple, orange,

: and blue ketchup. It sounds too : interesting not to try. So, my

: parents bought me a bottle of

: the purple kind. I had two hot

: dogs with it—and that was it.

Immediately, at such a

: young age, I realized what an : impact colour had on the overall ! : preconception of food. If it looks : : wrong, it’ll taste wrong. My

: brain just couldn’t make purple

: to distinguish its colour. Red is : supposed to taste like cherry, : right? Purple is supposed to be

grape, right? You'll be surprised

: how inaccurate your taste buds

are without the help of your

: eyes.

Colour is great for

: decoration, but it should not

be the main selling point for

: anything, be it cars, appliances, : or even food. Ask yourself,

: when was the last time you ate

: something just because of the

: colour? Maybe it was greens,

: because your parents forced you : to—but otherwise, very seldom.

When was the last time

you were out with friends, and : someone asked: “What do you

want to eat?” and you said, “Something yellow.” “Fried

: chicken it is!” Never. That’s not : how we make decisions. Food

x4

for it. Same goes with food— : ketchup good. : marketers need to be a little 2 especially fast food. You cannot : Don’t believe that colour : more creative, a little more 2 give something another coat of : affects flavour? Try this: grab : inventive, and a little more E paint and expect people to be : a bag of Skittles, havea friend =: tasteful when offering limited- rs impressed. : with you, and eat each one : time food. It should not be 2

My first encounter with : with your eyes closed and try : gimmicky. It should be tasty. E Privilege and prejudice » Why Kyriarchy theory can't make us equal

: splits people into diametrically : privilege heap, and likewise no € ou : opposed groups and conflates : top, then what’s the point of Adam Tatelman : all individuals into those : making such distinctions in the

Gata Writer : groups: men/women, white/ : first place? Are we only equal as

yriarchy theory is the idea non-white, gay/straight, cis/ : far as our attributes allow? Md kK people exist between trans, and so on. Rather : I suck at soccer. Conversely, oy we the extremes of privilege : than assuming each person’s : I'm pretty good at writing and “ey and oppression, much like : individuality, we are already : karate. That doesn’t make me the Marxist dialectic of the making a value judgment on linguistically privileged or working class and the upper their innate attributes; that’s athletically oppressed. This 2 4 class. Kyriarchy theory differs exactly the kind of thing to : is the final problem with de > Pa ho in that it takes into account : avoid ina truly equal society. | Kyriarchy theory: failure to LS 7? A race, gender, sexuality, creed, : Once we have split the ; take into account the context >> ie and physical ability in addition population into a million of so-called privileges and € . to wealth and social status. It | 8TOUPS, we must now decide : oppressions. The only time also states that in any of these: who is privileged, who is : my lack of soccer skill may areas a person may be either oppressed, who needs help, ; “oppress” me is if I foolishly 3 privileged or oppressed, be : and who does not. If being ; attempt to competeina 3 both privileged and oppressed disabled is a sign of oppression, ; soccer match against Zinedine 4 simultaneously, and that what if lam rich and disabled? Zidane—in which case, my E everyone is either more Dol still get help or should karate training may prove rf privileged or more oppressed : I get it myself? How can we useful. A

than someone else.

Those who propound Kyriarchy theory claim to pursue social, political, and economic equality between all people. Bog standard so far as idealist philosophies go. But, after considering what I have read on the subject, I conclude that Kyriarchy theory, by its own design, can’t allow for equality between anyone.

Like all idealist philosophies, Kyriarchy theory wants to represent all individuals equally. Admirable, but this is not possible to achieve when the ideology

: determine which group needs

: the most urgent aid if they can : be endlessly subdivided in this : manner? Who is to decide who : deserves the most help? Simply : having to decide creates a

: hierarchy.

Say I’m a half-black,

: half-aboriginal, blind, deaf, : quadriplegic, mentally

: challenged, transgender lesbian : : with ADD who was born in

: a trailer park. Who exactly

: am I advantaged over in the

: Kyriarchy scale? It is illogical > to assert that everyone is

: privileged over someone else. : If there’s no bottom of the

After considering all these

: logical issues, I can see Kyriarchy : theory as nothing more than

: what the philosopher, Ludwig

: Wittgenstein calls a “blik,” a pair : of goggles with which to see the

: world. If our individuality is all

: that matters, then why must we

: keep score of our own privileges

: and take care not to accidentally

oppress other people by our

: mere existence? Why must we : seek membership in groups

: defined by privilege and

: oppression instead of treating : one another as equals to begin : with? What could be further

: from equality than that?