Your Guacamole Has a Dark Side

avocado-1452326_1280.jpg

Don’t let anyone tell you different. Texans love their guacamole. Recipes are touted as the “best guacamole in Texas.” The quality of Mexican restaurants are judged on the basis of their guacamole. Even though the 78th Legislature in 2003 declared tortilla chips and salsa to be the state snack, guacamole reigns supreme in many dining circles. Of course, guacamole is not a Lone Star State creation, but I imagine that Texas would love to lay claim to it.

Guacamole traces its roots to the Aztecs, who inhabited a region in South Central Mexico from around 1300 to 1521. They mashed up avocados and spices into a mixture called āhuacamolli, literally “avocado sauce” in Nahuatl, the language used by the Aztecs. (The avocado itself, though, has quite a long history, going back to the Cenozoic era, where it was fodder for prehistoric creatures.) The ahuacatl or alligator pear, as the avocado was commonly called, caught the attention of Spaniards in the 16th century, who then brought these fruits back to Europe. Avocados first made their appearance in the United States in the mid-19th century. Farmers in California in the 1900s changed the name, believing that neither of the names, ahuacatl or alligator pear, were palatable for North American tastes. (Ahuacatl, incidentally, means “testicle” in Nahuatl, so the change was probably for the best.)

Whether it was the name change or the buttery texture of the fruit, avocado consumption in the United States has continued to increase steadily in the past two decades. According to the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “[p]er capita consumption of avocados has tripled since 2001 to 8 pounds per person in 2018.” California is the largest producer in the United States while Mexico is the largest importer with about 89% of the market share.

Unfortunately, this cool and creamy fruit and the delicious dip for which it is the main ingredient have a darker side, thanks to the drug cartels that are extorting avocado farmers in Mexico. Recognizing the value of this simple crop and the multi-billion dollar industry of which it is part, drug cartels first dipped their hand into the trade by offering protection to the farmers, asking for the payment of a tax in return. Services ceased, but money was still demanded. Some of the methods used by the cartels to gain control of land rife with avocado trees and the income derived from its production include informal “ownership,” monthly protection payments, and stolen produce. Failure to comply with demands, moreover, could result in kidnapping, torture, and even death, thus setting up a bloody battle between growers and the cartels. This violence has prompted many restaurant owners and consumers to boycott these so-called “blood avocados,” an approach not espoused by all because of the negative effect it will have on the workers who rely upon avocado production to put food on their tables and roofs over their heads. Boycotts, the argument goes, punish the victim, not the extorter.

Mexico is not the only nation in which its avocado crops attract criminals. For the past four years, avocados in New Zealand have fallen victim to thievery. One grower reportedly had about 70% of his orchard stolen. It is of such concern that the New Zealand avocado industry has issued recommendations and guidance to both growers and consumers to protect fruit from theft and to recognize fruit that had been stolen.

All of the criminal activity surrounding the avocado-growing industry coupled with consumer demand for the tasty, yet healthy superfood have caused avocado prices to skyrocket. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this growing problem, but it certainly gives us guacamole lovers food for thought.

Bona to vada your dolly old eek!*

Monday’s landmark Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia came as a surprise to many, with typically conservative justices making decisions with progressive outcomes. As so many have reported, Neil Gorsuch, a strict textualist, looked at the plain language of the law and concluded:

“When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it’s no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.”

Bottom line: Language matters.

We at the Harris County Law Library also have an appreciation for language and its many idiosyncrasies. Reading about the Supreme Court’s historic decision brought to mind the importance of language and words – what they mean, and how they function.

Language serves a greater purpose than communication. It is the currency we use for self-expression, and it gives meaning to thoughts and ideas. Language also builds communities. To learn the vocabulary, grammar, syntax, and tone of a language is to become part of the in-group that speaks it. In short, words give us access to the communities we inhabit.

Within those communities, we develop a jargon, which one website defines as “a type of shorthand between members of a particular group of people, often involving words that are meaningless outside of a certain context.” When mastered, jargon serves as an emblem of our belonging. One good example that illustrates how language defines a culture comes from the LGBTQ community in Great Britain.

Polari

This anti-language is, thankfully, a relic of a bygone era when gay men in the United Kingdom relied on words to keep them safe. Homosexuality was not decriminalized in the UK until the passage of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. Developing a tool for communicating within the gay community prior to that time was necessary to survive. That tool was Polari, a secret language that evolved from thieves’ cant, an argot used in the world of petty crime that dates back to the 16th century. Along the way, Polari picked up bits of Yiddish, Italian, and Romani. It bears many similarities to Cockney Rhyming Slang, using humor and wit to speak in a way that granted gay men the freedom to socialize and build community without fear. Today, Polari is all but dead, a sign of the times. Yesterday’s decision to protect LGBTQ individuals in the workplace hinged on a strict textual reading of the law, and consequently, led to the further demise of cultural touchstones like Polari that are no longer needed.

*Nice to see your pretty face!

Landmark SCOTUS Ruling Protects LGBT Workers

rainbow-flag-4426296_1280.jpg

In an earlier post today, we marked the signing of the Magna Carta and recognized the impact it had on our rights as set forth in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today, 805 years later, our nation takes another leap in its recognition of basic civil rights for its citizens. According to our nation’s highest court, employers who fire gay or transgender persons simply on the basis of their homosexual or transgender status violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This morning, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision protecting members of the LGBTQ community from employment discrimination. In each of the cases that forms the basis of Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, a long-time employee was fired for simply being gay or transgender. Each employee filed an action under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. In two of the cases, the appellate courts ruled that such discrimination did violate Title VII. However, with respect to the third case, the Eleventh Circuit found that the law does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay. In determining the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s mandate that employers not discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, the Supreme Court held that

An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

In so holding, the Court rejected an argument that in ordinary parlance firing a person for being gay or transgender did not amount to discrimination on the basis of sex because the fired individual would probably admit that they were fired on those grounds rather than because of their sex. Additionally, the Court dismissed an argument that discrimination based on one’s status as gay or transgender did not rise to the level of the disparate treatment showing required because there was no intentional discrimination based on sex on the part of the employer. The Court disagreed, finding that Title VII focuses on discrimination of individuals, not groups. Additionally, the Court stated that just because homosexuality and transgender status are not specifically included on the list of protected characteristics does not necessarily mean that the they are implicitly excluded.