http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaap8469
I wonder if your grandmother has any awareness that rice is a traditional staple crop only in the southern parts of Asia. Around the world, you could find more rice cultivation in tropical areas and more wheat cultivation in temperate areas... although the historical dividing line in China is still some ways north of the Tropic of Cancer.
https://metro.co.uk/2014/01/08/nick-griffin-is-the-new-jamie...
> He then explains the etymology of ‘curry’ to convince us that we don’t need immigration.
> ‘Incidentally, the word “curry” first appears from a cookery book during the reign of, I think it’s Richard II, 13th century… so don’t let people tell you that you have to have huge numbers of immigrants to have good cooking,’ he says.
> ‘We’ve got a Mexican restaurant in a town not far from here. The place isn’t swamped with Mexicans. You take the recipe – that’s really all you need.’
Initially, using a lot of spices was indicative of wealth and access, so it was desirable.
Then, spice availability increased and everyone could afford them.
At this point, the rhetoric switched and spices were looked down upon by the wealthy.
Your intuition about racism/xenophobia is probably correct. But that's not the interesting question, given how widespread it is. What is more thought-provoking is why did this kind of behavior evolve? What was the advantage? Is it still advantageous today?
It's just an extension of the competitive nature of humans/social animals. Social animals despise animals of the same species that are of different social groups. They all want their social group to prevail, and will attack (actively or passively, e.g. by refusing culture) the others. Humans like to think they are above this 'primitive' instinct, but I think the vast majority of human behavior can be summed up by this.
Sometimes it proves fatal when people get killed in racist attacks mainly because of their food habits.
That is only one explanation for the taboo. In certain Indian and Nepalese religious strains, it is said that the devout cannot eat onions (or garlic) because of a folk belief that these vegetables encourage lasciviousness.
Aversion to tomato is not something I have encountered though. I suppose it's possible I just haven't noticed it.
Pork was full of parasites until the advent of some relatively modern farming practices.
Off the cuff, we know from history people will find just about any reason to believe they are better than other people. The way they talk, or walk, or eat, or socialize, or the shape of their nose, or even the bumps on their cranium- there's always some way that we are better than them, we just have to think carefully to figure out what it is! So my initial reaction is, it's just a manifestation of xenophobia.
Does she then consider Jews from North Africa/Middle East/Israel, which do eat rice, to be barbaric?
Some picky eaters have to do with different levels of taste, or some people tasting different things.
Tomatoes, for me, get almost a nauseous reaction from me. There is a specific very loud flavor in raw tomatoes that I just can't stand. It's gone in cooked tomatoes. There are a few of us, and the idea is there is some chemical that some people taste but most don't.
The divide that I have noticed most strongly is that she seems to have split society into barbaric, rice-eating cultures, and the noble wheat/potato eaters. I'm pretty sure she doesn't even know how rice is cooked. She would never say it like this, but her aversion to cuisine does happen to correlate with groups that she will make casually racist comments about. The most prominent example being the Japanese, with Mexico being a close second.
I've been wondering for a while how closely correlated racism and food-racism are. Are picky eaters more likely to be xenophobes? Certainly I cannot imagine myself ever saying anything negative about Thailand or Ethiopia, but I don't feel anything like that empathy for China, or people who consume ketchup.