Warning: This is a biased opinionated RANT about food blogs. So read on at your peril, k?
Because of being burnt too many times in the past, I now have a practice with food blogs:
I look at the PIC of the blogger first. IF they have a “blonde (usually but sometimes not), pencil-thin (like they live on a stalk of celery a day), Insta-perfect” photo and are dressed in clothes no-one would DREAM of actually wearing in a kitchen to cook”, then I move on. That tells me quickly that the recipes are probably not theirs. They are probably using this as a side-hustle. The blog will contain more chatty details about their wonderful life with husband and kids (which I do NOT care about) and less info about the important thing: RECIPE. There will be GREAT REVIEWS from readers saying HOW EASY the recipes are; how every recipe turned out JUST as it looked on the site; and the glow will fill my screen as I read the comments while I’m trying not to gag. (And I know from past experience with these type of bloggers that the reason all of these comments are SO positive is that they REMOVE the negative ones.)
So. I look for blogs that are written by bloggers that LOOK like people who cook; that I’ve found in the past to have recipes that reliably DO work, even for folks with special diets; who don’t go on and on interminably about non-food matters (I wanna read about that, I’ll KUWTK-ugh); that have been vetted by friends who also have special diets. OR are written by flour and other product makers, cook books, and cooking sites. Those ALREADY have revenues and aren’t looking to gouge me. (Yeah, some ads might crop up if you don’t have ad-blockers, but that’s a different convo.) But they are less likely to have recipes stolen from other sites, weird recipes, or fake reviews. AND added bonus: no extraneous lifestyle chat!
Okay, rant concluded. I got that out of my system. Do I feel better now? Maybe. Consider yourself warned, if you have hadn’t discovered this already about food blogs.
I recently heard (second-hand) that one of my progressive organizations’ board leaders said, “I have no more time for 15-minute organizers.” By this I take to mean, they have no time for anyone who is: NEW TO THE GAME or NOT ALL IN ALL THE TIME or NOT ON BOARD WITH ALL THE ISSUES or I don’t know what else. And I think that by making this statement, they are drawing a lines that excludes basically everyone I know, excepting (perhaps) the local paid employee of that organization. It certainly puts ME out of the game, and I’ve been historically committed to the progressive fight. But more importantly, I think that it fundamentally undermines the way in which the organization ITSELF functions, in terms of how it teaches its people to reach out around issues.
15-minute organizers might be: new; time-limited; single-issue; or operating under under other constraints. If they are NEW, then OF COURSE they should be taught. Expecting someone new to immediately be a fulltime 24/7 activist is akin to throwing someone, not into the deep end of the pool, but into the ocean out of a boat and driving away. If they are time-limited but still WANT to participate, then why not let let them? If you want an ENTIRE organization of fulltime paid employees, then better get a much better budget. And if they are issue-driven, see below:
If ISSUES, not people, are truly what drives us, and we are supposed to be lead by those AFFECTED, then 15-minute organizers ARE VALUABLE. They are going to be issue-driven and motivated. IF they find that the work of organizing is effective and powerful, then they might transition into more long term members of the organization or move to find other progressive outlets that they can work with. IF we can get them to turn out for SOMETHING, then we have a chance to persuade them to return for other things. But even if they do not, then that thing that they DID turn out to help with still gets the benefit.
I hope I have made my case for the value of 15-minute organizers.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines SOCIAL CONTACT:
n.A usually implicit agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.
n.An implicit agreement or contract among members of a society that dictates things such as submission of individuals to rule of law and acceptable conduct.
n.an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection
I argue, along with many others, that African Americans in Minneapolis were demonstrating that for them, the social contract has frayed to breaking point. Or indeed has not even existed, since America refuses to grapple on any systemic basis with the institutional and deep-seated racism that is built into the foundation of society here. The question is not “Are the African American participants of the Minneapolis riots justified in their actions,” but rather, “When will MORE take place?”
AND WHY SHOULDN’T THEY? If I were a person who had black or brown skin, I’d be angry (and also scared but more angry) ALL THE TIME now. In the background somewhere, at least. Maybe the reason EVERYONE in local African American communities isn’t rioting, throwing things, and burning down their local police department is just that they are one, living their lives AT THE MOMENT and two, they haven’t gotten pissed off enough yet. But we -every community EVERYWHERE-have our moment of reckoning coming. We can do better: START TRAINING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING; HIRE MORE OFFICERS OF COLOR; START COMMUNITY-WIDE PROGRAMS IN RACIAL JUSTICE AND RECONCILIATION; ELECT MORE DIVERSE ELECTEDS ON A LOCAL LEVEL AND MOVE ON UP; TRAIN AND HIRE MORE TEACHERS OF COLOR. Just For a start. I’m no expert.