Saturday, August 30, 2008

The Krait Calls Out The Mighty Quinnette

The Krait (aka Gail Collins) might have eased up on The Mighty Quinnette, The Geezer's Half-Baked Alaska, but The Krait sank her fangs with an imagined exchange between Jumpin' Joe and The Mighty Q at the Veep Debate. The Mighty Q babbles about The Hillster and Jumpin' Joe says, “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.” Unfortunately, that line (about "Jack Kennedy") won the Veep debate for Senator Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) in 1988, but the Donkeys lost the election to Poppy and Potatoe-Head anyway. If this is (fair & balanced) invective, so be it.



[x NY Fishwrap]
McCain’s Baked Alaska
By Gail Collins

It is conceivable that some people will think John McCain picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate because she is a woman. I know you find this shocking, but I swear I have heard it mentioned.

McCain does not believe in pandering to identity politics. He was looking for someone who was well prepared to fight against international Islamic extremism, the transcendent issue of our time. And in the end he decided that in good conscience, he was not going to settle for anyone who had not been commander of a state national guard for at least a year and a half. He put down his foot!

The obvious choice was Palin, the governor of Alaska, whose guard stands as our last best defense against possible attack by the resurgent Russian menace across the Bering Strait.

Also a woman, but that’s totally beside the point.

True, the only nonfamily members other than McCain that Palin really mentioned in her introductory speech were Democrats Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Whatever happened to Ronald Reagan? Isn’t there a rule that you have to mention Ronald Reagan?

“It was rightly noted in Denver that Hillary made 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America,” Palin said. “It turns out the women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all.”

O.K., the women thing might have been a little bit of a selling point. Not nearly so much as the national guard commandership, of course. But if the millions of Democratic women who are still ticked off at Obama for stepping in front of Hillary in the line want to look elsewhere ...

John McCain has a low opinion of the vice presidency, which he’s frequently described as a job that involves attending funerals and checking on the health of the president. (Happy 72nd birthday, John!) There’s a lot we don’t know yet about Palin, and I am personally looking forward to deconstructing her role in the Matanuska Maid Dairy closing crisis. But at first glance, she doesn’t seem much less qualified than Tim Pawlenty, the governor of Minnesota who most people thought was the most likely pick. Unlike Joe Lieberman, Palin is a member of the same party as the presidential candidate. And unlike Mitt Romney, she has never gone on vacation with the family dog strapped to the roof of the car.

However, I do feel kind of ticked off at the assumptions that the Republicans seem to be making about female voters. It’s a tad reminiscent of the Dan Quayle selection, when the first George Bush’s advisers decided they could close the gender gap with a cute running mate.

The idea that women are going to race off to vote for any candidate with the same internal plumbing is both offensive and historically wrong. When the sexes have parted company in modern elections, it’s generally been because women are more likely to be Democrats, and more concerned about protecting the social safety net. “The gender gap traditionally has been determined by party preference, not by the gender of the candidate,” said Ruth Mandel of the Eagleton Institute of Politics.

Over the last week, we have heard over and over and over that Tuesday was the anniversary of the day women got the right to vote. (They got it when a state representative in Tennessee, where the House was split on the ratification issue, changed his vote because his mother wrote him a letter telling him to shape up. That’s a story that I would love to get into, but, unfortunately, right now we have Sarah Palin to deal with.)

After that big moment of enfranchisement, women went through a long period in the desert where they had the vote but not much else. Then came the great revolutions of the 1970s, when all the assumptions about the natural divisions between the sexes were challenged. During that era, women could be excited and moved by symbolic candidacies that promised a better, more inclusive future, like Shirley Chisholm’s presidential race and Geraldine Ferraro’s presence on the Democratic national ticket.

This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back.

If she’s only on the ticket to try to get disaffected Clinton supporters to cross over, it’s a bad choice. Joe Biden may already be practicing his drop-dead line for the vice-presidential debate: “I know Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a friend of mine, and governor, you’re no Hillary Clinton.”

[Gail Collins joined The New York Times in 1995 as a member of the editorial board and later as an op-ed columnist. In 2001 she became the first woman ever appointed editor of The Times editorial page. At the beginning of 2007, she stepped down and began a leave in order to finish a sequel to her book, America's Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates and Heroines. She returned to The Times as a columnist in July 2007. Collins has a degree in journalism from Marquette University and an M.A. in government from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Prior to The New York Times, Collins wrote for the New York Daily News, Newsday, Connecticut Business Journal, United Press International, and the Associated Press in New York City.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Infrastructure Nightmare Is Just Beginning

We can drill until we're blue in the face; the refinery capacity of the United States cannot process any more oil than it currently has in its pipes. We can install wind farms as far as the eye can see and it still won't mean any more electrical power at the plug. The United States has a woeful lack of high power transmission lines to move the electricity from the wind turbines to power stations. If the infrastructure news wasn't bad already, the Internet — invented in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave — has grown up and moved to Italy, China, India, and Japan. The U.S. telecom giants have not invested in fiber cable networks and the other aspects of broadband infrastructure and not a single U.S. telecom company is among the top Internet providers in the world today. The fat lady's song is getting louder. If this is (fair & balanced) infrastructural gloom, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Internet Traffic Begins To Bypass The U.S.
By John Markoff

The era of the American Internet is ending.

Invented by American computer scientists during the 1970s, the Internet has been embraced around the globe. During the network’s first three decades, most Internet traffic flowed through the United States. In many cases, data sent between two locations within a given country also passed through the United States.

Engineers who help run the Internet said that it would have been impossible for the United States to maintain its hegemony over the long run because of the very nature of the Internet; it has no central point of control.

And now, the balance of power is shifting. Data is increasingly flowing around the United States, which may have intelligence — and conceivably military — consequences.

American intelligence officials have warned about this shift. “Because of the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing with a tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to exploit that edge,” Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006. “We also need to protect that edge, and we need to protect those who provide it to us.”

Indeed, Internet industry executives and government officials have acknowledged that Internet traffic passing through the switching equipment of companies based in the United States has proved a distinct advantage for American intelligence agencies. In December 2005, The New York Times reported that the National Security Agency had established a program with the cooperation of American telecommunications firms that included the interception of foreign Internet communications.

Some Internet technologists and privacy advocates say those actions and other government policies may be hastening the shift in Canadian and European traffic away from the United States.

“Since passage of the Patriot Act, many companies based outside of the United States have been reluctant to store client information in the U.S.,” said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. “There is an ongoing concern that U.S. intelligence agencies will gather this information without legal process. There is particular sensitivity about access to financial information as well as communications and Internet traffic that goes through U.S. switches.”

But economics also plays a role. Almost all nations see data networks as essential to economic development. “It’s no different than any other infrastructure that a country needs,” said K C Claffy, a research scientist at the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis in San Diego. “You wouldn’t want someone owning your roads either.”

Indeed, more countries are becoming aware of how their dependence on other countries for their Internet traffic makes them vulnerable. Because of tariffs, pricing anomalies and even corporate cultures, Internet providers will often not exchange data with their local competitors. They prefer instead to send and receive traffic with larger international Internet service providers.

This leads to odd routing arrangements, referred to as tromboning, in which traffic between two cites in one country will flow through other nations. In January, when a cable was cut in the Mediterranean, Egyptian Internet traffic was nearly paralyzed because it was not being shared by local I.S.P.’s but instead was routed through European operators.

The issue was driven home this month when hackers attacked and immobilized several Georgian government Web sites during the country’s fighting with Russia. Most of Georgia’s access to the global network flowed through Russia and Turkey. A third route through an undersea cable linking Georgia to Bulgaria is scheduled for completion in September.

Ms. Claffy said that the shift away from the United States was not limited to developing countries. The Japanese “are on a rampage to build out across India and China so they have alternative routes and so they don’t have to route through the U.S.”

Andrew M. Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota who tracks the growth of the global Internet, added, “We discovered the Internet, but we couldn’t keep it a secret.” While the United States carried 70 percent of the world’s Internet traffic a decade ago, he estimates that portion has fallen to about 25 percent.

Internet technologists say that the global data network that was once a competitive advantage for the United States is now increasingly outside the control of American companies. They decided not to invest in lower-cost optical fiber lines, which have rapidly become a commodity business.

That lack of investment mirrors a pattern that has taken place elsewhere in the high-technology industry, from semiconductors to personal computers.

The risk, Internet technologists say, is that upstarts like China and India are making larger investments in next-generation Internet technology that is likely to be crucial in determining the future of the network, with investment, innovation and profits going first to overseas companies.

“Whether it’s a good or a bad thing depends on where you stand,” said Vint Cerf, a computer scientist who is Google’s Internet evangelist and who, with Robert Kahn, devised the original Internet routing protocols in the early 1970s. “Suppose the Internet was entirely confined to the U.S., which it once was? That wasn’t helpful.”

International networks that carry data into and out of the United States are still being expanded at a sharp rate, but the Internet infrastructure in many other regions of the world is growing even more quickly.

While there has been some concern over a looming Internet traffic jam because of the rise in Internet use worldwide, the congestion is generally not on the Internet’s main trunk lines, but on neighborhood switches, routers and the wires into a house.

As Internet traffic moves offshore, it may complicate the task of American intelligence gathering agencies, but would not make Internet surveillance impossible.

“We’re probably in one of those situations where things get a little bit harder,” said John Arquilla, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., who said the United States had invested far too little in collecting intelligence via the Internet. “We’ve given terrorists a free ride in cyberspace,” he said.

Others say the eclipse of the United States as the central point in cyberspace is one of many indicators that the world is becoming a more level playing field both economically and politically.

“This is one of many dimensions on which we’ll have to adjust to a reduction in American ability to dictate terms of core interests of ours,” said Yochai Benkler, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. “We are, by comparison, militarily weaker, economically poorer and technologically less unique than we were then. We are still a very big player, but not in control.”

China, for instance, surpassed the United States in the number of Internet users in June. Over all, Asia now has 578.5 million, or 39.5 percent, of the world’s Internet users, although only 15.3 percent of the Asian population is connected to the Internet, according to Internet World Stats, a market research organization.

By contrast, there were about 237 million Internet users in North America and the growth has nearly peaked; penetration of the Internet in the region has reached about 71 percent.

The increasing role of new competitors has shown up in data collected annually by Renesys, a firm in Manchester, N.H., that monitors the connections between Internet providers. The Renesys rankings of Internet connections, an indirect measure of growth, show that the big winners in the last three years have been the Italian Internet provider Tiscali, China Telecom and the Japanese telecommunications operator KDDI.

Firms that have slipped in the rankings have all been American: Verizon, Savvis, AT&T, Qwest, Cogent and AboveNet.

“The U.S. telecommunications firms haven’t invested,” said Earl Zmijewski, vice president and general manager for Internet data services at Renesys. “The rest of the world has caught up. I don’t see the AT&T’s and Sprints making the investments because they see Internet service as a commodity.”

[John Markoff received a BA in Sociology at Whitman College and a Master's degree from the University of Oregon. In 1988, Markoff joined The New York Times as a business writer. In 1994 Markoff wrote an article about computer hacker Kevin Mitnick, who was then a fugitive on the run from a number of law enforcement agencies. Markoff wrote several more pieces detailing Mitnick's capture. Markoff also co-wrote, with Tsutomu Shimomura, the book Takedown about the Mitnick case. Markoff writes about information technology for The Times.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Holy Smoke: Bar-B-Q Is Evil?

If you frequent this blog often enough, some bat guano theory will jump right out of your computer screen. Andrew Leonard, a columnist for Salon has ventured far into the bat cave this time with a review of a book by a Brit claiming that Bar-B-Q was born of racism and genocide.

To digress (a favorite pasttime of this blogger), the Bar-B-Q pilgrimmage meandered past two venues last weekend: one was a restaurant(?) and the other was definitely a joint.

[x Texas Monthly]
BBQ08
By Patrica Sharpe, et al.

AUSTIN
LAMBERTS DOWNTOWN BARBECUE
Building used to be: One of Austin’s first general stores.
Can a place that cooks its meat in a gas-burning rotisserie make really great ’cue? Well, the brown-sugar-and-coffee-rubbed brisket was delicious, the maple-and-coriander- encrusted pork ribs were tender, the pulled pork was perfect, and the chorizo-ish jalapeño hot links were unforgettable. Sides and desserts were extraordinary. A jícama-and- carrot slaw, in particular, had plenty of cilantro and lime to cleanse the palate, and the hot blackberry fried pie prompted an “oh, my God.” KV (Katy Vine)
Rating: 4.25.
401 W. Second, 512-494-1500. Open 7 days 11–2 & 5:30–11.

AUSTIN
MANN’S SMOKEHOUSE BAR-B-QUE
Building used to be: A KFC.
Owner Jim Mann and his jovial staff served us fatty brisket, pork ribs, loin, and pulled pork that offered a surplus of smokiness and juice. (The salty sauce worked well with the loin.) Jim’s wife, Sallie, makes sides from Southern family recipes. Her black-eyed peas, lima beans, and cornbread perfectly accompanied the meat. Come on Fridays for free homemade ice cream (especially during peach season). KV (Katy Vine)
Rating: 4.5.
8624 Research Blvd., 512-459-5077. Open Tue—Sat 11:30—8. Closed Sun & Mon.

With all due respect to the TM reviewer, Katy Vine, this blogger rated the pork ribs at Lambert's a lot lower than a 4.25 on a 5.0 scale. Lambert's is a sit-down restaurant with wait-staff and linen napkins! Real Bar-B-Q is served in a chow line on butcher paper, folks! On top of that, Lambert's didn't serve the best liquid refreshment to go with 'cue: a Silver Bullet. Lone Star just doesn't do it for this Texas wannabe. Onward to Mann's on the way home, the place is a joint. The ribs were better than Lambert's, but not on a par with Louie Mueller's in Taylor or Zimmerhanzel's in Smithville. On top of that, Mann's doesn't know that Prohibition was repealed in 1933; the big beverage options are sweetened or unsweetened iced tea. I would peg Mann's at a 4.0 and that's gradin' on a generous curve.

In this blogger/Bar-B-Q pilgrim's heart, the best 'cue to be had in Austin proper is Rudy's. Here is what another blogger had to say about Rudy's:

[x If You Write It Blog]
By Descartes

Rudy's Barbecue The Best Worst BarBQ in Texas

Rudy's Barbecue is slow cooked, slow smoked, and quickly eaten. This is real Texas Barbecue. Their logo says The Worst Barb-B-Q in Texas, but that is just a marketing gimmick, they are among the best. In Dallas the big name in Barbecue is Sonny Bryant's, and they do have pretty good sauce, but they have some of the blandest, dullest, driest barbecue I've ever eaten. Cover it with enough sauce and it is not that bad, but real Texas barbecue, like the kind you find at Rudy's Barbecue, doesn't have to be hidden under a thick layer of sauce to taste great. The whole point of Barbecue, for those of you that have never been to Texas, Kansas City, or Memphis, is to cook it slow with smoke so that the meat is flavored by the wood that is being consumed. Rudy's Barbecue does this as good as anyone, anywhere.

KC Masterpiece is my favorite barbecue place, because it is a real restaurant, something most barbecue Joints don't aspire to be. But it is nice to sit down at a clean booth and have a waiter bring you your slab of ribs and give you a hand towel to whip off the excess sauce. Expect none of that at Rudy's Barbecue.

Most of the Rudy's Barbecues I have been to are half aircraft hanger and half converted gas station. There are long wooden tables with checked picnic tablecloths. The walls have a few old signs that seem to be required whenever anyone opens a new restaurant, but they are so high on the distant walls as to go unnoticed. The main room is usually vast for the number of people that it seats. This is a good thing. Even though everyone shares these long tables, there is no feeling of being crowded. And Rudy's Barbecue can be crowded.

The menu is the usual barbecue suspects, barbecued brisket, barbecued pork ribs, barbecued pork, barbecued chicken, barbecued smoked sausage and barbecued turkey. There is an item they call a stew that is basically the trimmings from all the cuts of meat they serve. It is a bit peppery, but it's very good. They have some of the best Cream Corn I have ever had. The pinto beans and the cold slaw are also very good.

The beverages are keep in over sized coolers filled with ice and cold water, or you can order a fountain drink. Everything is available to go and the meat is just as good the second day as the first.

The service is fast and brisk, as usual in a barbecue joint. They expect you to know what you want when you get to the head of the line and may go to the next person if you hesitate while reading the menu. But the food appears quickly and is served with a couple of slices of white bread and a bottle of sauce. Barbecue always costs more than I think it should, but at Rudy's Barbecue it is worth the expense.

Like all barbecue Rudy's Barbecue is not a health food. If you are counting calories or watching your weight, you'll be better off heading to Subways. But if you want some of the best barbecue west of Memphis and south of KC, this is the place to go.

Rudy's originated in Leon Springs, TX (west of San Antonio on I-10) and has morphed into a franchise operation with outlets throughout Texas (all the way to Lubbock and Amarillo) and outward to Oklahoma and New Mexico.

According to the corporate Web site:

In the 1800's, Max Aue developed the small community of Leon Springs, in the Texas Hill Country outside of San Antonio. In 1929, Max's son, Rudolph, opened a gas station, garage and grocery store. In 1989, Bar-B-Q was added to the Country Store and Rudy's "Country Store" and Bar-B-Q, was founded. Today, Rudy's "Country Store" and Bar-B-Q, has expanded throughout the southwest with the same original recipes that made Rudy's Leon Springs famous.

Rudy's is a meat market that sells cooked meats. Our pits are 100% wood fired with oak, a slower burning wood as opposed to mesquite. Our meats are cooked in a dry spice, not in our "Sause" (we use it on the side). Our unique "Sause" is being shipped throughout the United States (and Texas, of course).

Rudy's serves the meat on butcher paper, sells it by the pound, provides good liquid refreshment, and accepts plastic — unlike the other joints that sell genuine Texas barbecue. If this is (fair & balanced) gastronomy, so be it.

[x Salon]
The Dark History Of Burned Flesh
By Andrew Leonard

(Summary: Drop those spareribs, imperialist pig-eaters! A new book argues that the great American barbecue smolders on the coals of genocidal racism.)

A good barbecue, as I see it, should begin with a trip to Home Depot to buy 6-foot lengths of rebar. When suspending an entire butterflied lamb over an oak fire for many hours, while basting it with stalks of rosemary dripping with lemon juice and red wine, the rebar comes in handy for spread-eagling purposes. Just insert the rebar through diagonally opposed leg joints, and your crucified lamb is easily maneuverable.

I performed this ritual (or rather, I should say, a cabal of carefully recruited barbecuing partners in grill did, while I was busy tending baby back ribs in a honey-mustard glaze in my smoker and shucking lightly roasted oysters over the grill) in my backyard a month ago for a couple hundred of my closest friends. The lamb, suspended over a gaping, smoking pit, with the ends of the rebar resting on cinder blocks, exerted an irresistible seductive force over my guests. Some gathered around just to watch, to commune with the ancient splendor of meat and smoke and fire. Some ventured further and volunteered their efforts tending the coals -- smoking a lamb over a wood fire for five or six hours is a tedious business: Labor is required. Some basted and, finally, some carved. Everyone ate.

All in all, it made for a kick-ass party. But after reading Andrew Warnes' Savage Barbecue: Race, Culture, and the Invention of America's First Food, I suspect more was going on, beneath the smoke cookery, than I cared to acknowledge.

To this day, writes Warnes, a lecturer in American literature and culture at Leeds University, barbecue "has yet to escape the fraught implications of savagery and cannibalism inbuilt and original to its name." Barbecue's early popularization in 18th century London was "wedded to the ascent of new notions of racial exoticism and mastery." In one of the earliest English-language descriptions of this imported cuisine, Ned Ward's The Barbacue Feast, published in 1707, "the whipping of slaves goes hand in hand," theorizes Warnes, "with the savage barbecuing of meat. Both belong to the production of a new imperial supremacy that can corrupt those it empowers."

Best of all, or most absurd of all, there is Warnes' rumination on what it must have been like to participate in one of President Andrew Jackson's famous Election Day barbecues:

And perhaps these mountains of meat in turn connoted a power over violence in a way no other food could. Perhaps prospective politicians kept planning this particular event because, even as it offered opportunities to display public generosity, it declared to all in town that they were men — warriors even. Slowly rotting in the summer sun, the piles of pig would have announced a kind of power, a mastery over rather than servitude to death. War veterans, after a drink or two, could comment on the meat, contemplating its resemblance to the roasted and dismembered Native corpses they had seen.

Savage Barbecue is either the most ridiculous book ever written about America's defining "grass-roots" food, or it is the most profound. Or perhaps it is both. As someone who takes his barbecue very, very seriously, and who is equally unafraid of fire and raw flesh (not to mention writers like Warnes, who tackle their subjects with a clutch of poststructuralist deconstructionists cheering them on and the likes of Edward Said nodding in sage approval), I found myself both riveted and appalled by Warnes' investigation of barbecue. Was I cultivating a heart of darkness in my own backyard? Or did I, like so many Americans, just like to hang outside by the fire and rend some exquisitely prepared meat with my teeth?

The story begins and ends with the name. As legend, and the Oxford English Dictionary, would have it, the word "barbecue" is derived from "barbacoa," a word supposedly used by indigenous Haitians to refer to a "framework of sticks set upon posts" upon which the Native Americans placed their meat, for purposes of slow smoking. Barbecue may have even played a part in the earliest initial encounters between Europe and the New World. Columbus' sailors are reported to have been horrified at the sight of slowly smoked whole iguanas hoisted above the beaches of what later became dubbed Hispaniola.

Etymologically speaking, therefore, it is only a coincidence that "barbecue" shares some syllables with "barbarian" (derived from the Greek word denoting "those who don't speak Greek"). But for Warnes, there are no coincidences. Assonance is no accident! Europeans invested the connotations of barbarism in the indigenous word barbacoa, and, voilà, barbecue came to signify not just smoke cookery but also the savagery of the New World, as opposed to the civilization of the Old.

Warnes gives a clue to his overall approach when he observes that "the editors of dictionaries and encyclopedias would perhaps view the inferential character of this argument with some suspicion."

Well, yes. Proper historians, anthropologists, etymologists and probably most lovers of barbecue would likely run screaming from Warnes' text, horrified at the liberties he takes while pursuing his argument. Too many sentences begin with the words "conceivably" or include constructions such as "it is not hard to imagine..." Too often, Warnes makes leaps of faith, for which there is, strictly speaking, no hard evidence. One example, Thomas Jefferson's inexcusable failure to so much as mention the practice of barbecue in Notes on the State of Virginia (or, egad, in any of his writings) is transformed into proof that he was "aloof and loath to experience barbecues firsthand."

But let's give Warnes credit for being forthright about all this, before we string him up over coals of his own making. In the preface he notes:

As a tradition that dislikes its own cultural status, a tradition that wants everywhere to establish itself at a grassroots and instinctual level, barbecue cannot be approached head-on. It will only give up its historical secrets if we are prepared to read adventurously, and between the lines of the colonial and Republican archives.

And adventuring we go, from some of the earliest accounts of European visitations to the Americas, to the works of the likes of playwright Aphra Ben and Ned Ward (whose other classics include two books that have jumped to the top of my must-read list, Sot's Paradise and Delights of the Bottle), to Cotton Mather and Thomas Jefferson and Zora Neale Hurston and Andrew Jackson. Perhaps it would be best to think of Warnes' approach in the way one appreciates a risk-taking jazz soloist. Sometimes the improvising works; sometimes, not so much.

The thesis is provocative: Europeans embraced a barbecue mythology because it allowed them to "present the cultures" of the New World "as the barbaric antithesis of European achievement." So barbecue, at its core, throbs with racism.

But before considering the contradictions inherent within Southern pit barbecue, cherished by both black and white, and indeed, during the Jim Crow era, one of the few social arenas in which black and white could mix, I must concede that even though I bridled at some of Warnes' more histrionic formulations, like his revels in "the satanic poetics of American savagery," I found myself acknowledging that there is definitely something foul lurking behind the delectable fumes of rendering pig fat.

One has only to look at a photograph of the stunning copper engraving "A Tupinamban Cannibal Feast" by Theodor De Bry from 1592 to understand that, right from the earliest times, barbecue did connote unspeakable savagery to many Europeans. There is virtually no historical evidence that Native Americans were fond of cutting up their fellow humans into manageable pieces and throwing them on the barbacoa, but it is clear from multiple early accounts that Europeans believed that they did, or wanted to believe they did. And there is a fascinating, as yet not well understood, story to be learned about how indigenous smoke cookery intersected with the traditions and cultural practices of imported African slave labor (and imported pigs). What resulted was uniquely American, and profoundly entangled in the economics of slavery and the violence wrought upon the original inhabitants of the Americas.

Because in the South, at least, it's clear that slaves did most of the work. Smoking an entire beast is a time-consuming, labor-intensive project. Slaves dug the pits, tended the coals, basted the meat. This most American of foods is precisely so American because Europeans adopted the cooking technology from the Indians they exterminated while giving the job of chef to the slaves they brought from Africa.

Does this explain Southern pit barbecue's rejection of the "effete" — its conscious adoption of low-rent plastic cutlery and paper napkins as markers of an explicit disavowal of more "civilized" cuisine? Can we then stomach Warnes' assertion that "to take pit barbecue joints at face value, to accept that where they begin culinary standards end, is to see this culture not as it is but as it wants to be seen: subaltern, rebellious, wild, barbaric."

I don't know. As I read Savage Barbecue I found myself scribbling in the margins: "ridiculous," "kooky," "he's making this up as he goes along!" and then, on the next page, being forced to confront just how much of the early history of my country is inextricable from abhorrent acts of racism — the wholesale forced migrations and annihilations of peoples — and to admit that barbecue does, indeed, fit intimately into that narrative.

The "true barbarians," concludes Warnes, are not the half-naked Native Americans slow-smoking their iguanas or salmon on raised platforms above a bed of coals, but those "who wash their hands of the violence they have sent out into the world." That could, I suppose, include my guests and I, as we pledged obeisance to the smoking lamb and gnawed on our baby backs, dabbling in a cuisine forged out of genocide and slavery.

That's one way to look at it. Another would be to cherish how even out of such savagery, a hybrid mestizo cuisine was born, an edible jazz, that ultimately belongs to us all. And tastes real good.

[Andrew Leonard is a freelance writer based in Berkeley, CA. He is a contributing writer for Wired Magazine. His work has also appeared in the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Nation, British Esquire, the New York Times Book Review, the Columbia Journalism Review, Asia Inc., the San Francisco Bay Guardian and numerous other publications. He has been technology editor for the online magazine Web Review, Packet culture columnist for HotWired, and was the writer of the ill-fated Secret Files of Bill Gates for America Online. His first book, Bots: Origin of New Species," was published in 2007. Leonard attended the University of North Dakota.]

Copyright © 2008 Salon Media Group


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.