From curry to capitalism: How racism, food prejudices, and socialist alternatives collide in the battle for America’s soul
Despite relentless efforts—from propaganda and war-mongering to political and personal attacks on socialism and its leaders—the rise of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is shaking the foundations of Yankee imperialism and the racialized capitalist structure of the United States. In the battleground of New York’s mayoral elections, Mamdani—son of immigrants, the renowned scholar Professor Mahmood Mamdani and acclaimed filmmaker Mira Nair—offers a genuine political alternative for working people in America. His family reflects an organic and secular multiculturalism, while his politics—focused on redistributing public wealth for public welfare—challenge the entrenched interests of American crony capitalism. To the ruling elite, his vision is an existential threat. Hence, the hateful, racially charged outbursts emerging from leaders across the political aisle.
The reactionary leadership of both the Republican and Democratic parties has joined forces to discredit Mamdani by attacking not just his politics but also his race, ethnicity, family background, and even his food habits. Brandon Gene Gill, a Republican Congressman from Texas and former investment banker, publicly told Mamdani to “adopt Western customs” or “go back to the Third World,” adding, “civilised people in America don’t eat with their hands.” Such statements have shocked many, but Gill’s comments are neither isolated nor harmless. They reflect a deeply rooted ideology shaped by a racist, capitalist society and a colonialist mindset of “othering.” This ideological project continues to inform politics and culture across America and Europe, marginalizing working people and their cultural practices.
The racialization of dietary habits is not new. Much of it stems from colonial ethnography shaped by Euro-American anthropologists who used food habits to construct hierarchies of civilisation. In truth, food cultures are determined by local production, climate, economy, purchasing power, and community-specific socialisation. Urban and rural diets differ largely due to variations in access and affordability, which are themselves shaped by class, infrastructure, and market forces. Whether someone eats rice by hand, with a spoon, or uses chopsticks or a fork for noodles or pasta is a matter of practical adaptation, not civilisational superiority. Burgers and pizza, eaten with hands, are rarely labelled uncivilised. To claim that eating with a fork is “civilised” while eating with hands is “primitive” is not only absurd—it’s a deliberate strategy to demean non-Western cultures and the working class.
This colonial logic reinforces global hierarchies by mocking the food habits of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It devalues local knowledge systems and ways of life while celebrating homogenised consumerism. However, these narratives are not exclusive to the West. In India, the caste-based Brahminical social order similarly marginalises lower-caste communities through the policing of food and dress. Dalits, widows, and others are often subjected to dietary restrictions imposed by patriarchal and casteist norms. Here too, food becomes a tool of social control and exclusion.
The intersections of race, caste, class, and gender in the policing of food practices serve a common purpose: upholding unjust hierarchies while masking discrimination in the language of culture or etiquette. In American and European societies, where homelessness and hunger coexist with excess, such narratives normalise inequality. These are sustained by politicians and intellectuals whose worldviews are products of colonial ignorance, institutionalised prejudice, and capitalist interest.
This ignorance also shapes knowledge production, reinforcing ideologies that justify the violence of the status quo. U.S. imperialism and its European partners have failed to offer a viable capitalist model that meets basic human needs—food, fuel, housing, healthcare, education, and employment. As a result, any advocacy for an alternative is viewed as subversive. Elites seek not only to mass-produce food but also to standardise how we eat, stripping away diversity in the name of market efficiency.
Through the global spread of homogenised fast food culture—the “McDonaldisation” of eating—capitalist corporations erode culinary diversity while tightening control over consumption. Supermarket chains and food multinationals push profit-driven models that leave farmers, workers, and communities powerless. In this system, food becomes less about nourishment or identity, and more about commodification.
In contrast, socialist alternatives are rooted in local production, ecological balance, and community needs. They promote food sovereignty, empower farmers, and encourage diverse practices of cultivation, preparation, and consumption. A socialist food system is not only sustainable but also just—it reclaims food as a right, not a commodity.
The real signs of civilisation lie not in the cutlery we use, but in our capacity for care, cooperation, and collective progress. Bombing nations, suppressing dissent, and mocking cultural practices are the marks of an uncivilised system driven by racism and greed. A truly civil society prioritises equality, dignity, and freedom. Congressman Gill does not need hatred—he needs education, one rooted in historical and social consciousness. He needs to understand that the strength of any society lies in its diversity, not in the erasure of difference.
Socialist alternatives, based on solidarity, sharing, and care, embrace the world’s cultural richness—from American burgers to Chinese noodles, Indian rice, Latin American tacos, African yams and cassava, to Middle Eastern meats. Let our food choices be defined by our communities and cultures—not by Eurocentric arrogance.
This journey can begin with Zohran Mamdani’s campaign in New York, representing not just an electoral challenge but a deeper political and cultural alternative. A socialist United States—and a socialist world—is not only possible; it is necessary.
Comments