A college course challenging ‘fatphobia’ is right that white people made fat an issue

The University of New Mexico is offering a Fat Studies class that, naturally, blames colonialism and racism (i.e., white people) for the stigma attached to fat. Ironically, the class is correct that white people did something that stigmatized fat. However, what the indoctrinated instructor doesn’t understand is that the stigma reflects something wondrous—namely, capitalism’s ability to end famine.

Historically, of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (Death, Famine, War, and Conquest), Famine was second only to Death when it came to something unavoidable for most of the world’s people. Famine stalked everyone because everyone lived in abject poverty, scrabbling for food. What changed poverty was capitalism:

In 1820, 94% of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty. By 1910, this figure had fallen to 82%, and by 1950 the rate had dropped yet further, to 72%. However, the largest and fastest decline occurred between 1981 (44.3%) and 2015 (9.6%). Reading these figures, which were compiled by Johan Norberg for his book Progress, is enough to make anyone rub their eyes in disbelief. For according to leftist anti-capitalists, these were the very decades in which so much went so wrong in the world.

[snip]

According to Norberg, 200 years ago, at the birth of capitalism, there were only about 60 million people in the world who were not living in extreme poverty. Today there are more than 6.5 billion people who are not living in extreme poverty. Between 1990 and 2015 alone (in Thomas Piketty’s view the devastating years in which social inequality rose so sharply), 1.25 billion people around the world escaped extreme poverty—50 million per year and 138,000 every day.

The innovations associated with capitalism also led to better food production and delivery methods. Wherever the white European creation of capitalism went, famine lessened.

Image: The Venus of Hohle Fels, from 41,000 years ago, by Ramessos. CC BY-SA 3.0.  

Colonialism was color-blind in this regard. Whatever you think of colonialism, as Niall Ferguson wrote in his masterful Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power, those regions that Britain colonized were lucky because Britain brought an organized civil service and capitalism to its colonies. When Britain pulled out, these areas thrived compared to those regions around them that hadn’t benefitted from these uniquely white colonialist attributes.

In other words, white capitalism was a good thing. But what does this have to do with alleged fat phobia?

A lot.

In times of famine, fatness represents fertility because malnourished women struggle to get pregnant and feed their babies. That’s why archeological digs turn up “Venus” figures from the Paleolithic area, all of which are morbidly obese. They are the opposite of starvation.

Because of fat’s ancient connotation of fertility, excess weight has long been seen as an attribute of the wealthy. Their buxom women showed that they were fertile. This is true across all cultures, whether looking at Africans, Asians, Polynesians, Latin Americans, Native Americans, or the West. When famine was a problem, a pleasing plumpness was a virtue—and one that few could enjoy.

Incidentally, at the same time, one of the attributes of wealth in the West was white skin. That meant that you weren’t working in the fields. Instead, you led a pampered, indoor life far from physical labor.

By the early 20th century, however, when Johan Norberg’s statistics show that capitalism was beginning to enter its prime, things changed. Fewer people needed to labor in the fields because farming was more efficient at production and distribution, and more people were in factories and offices creating the efficiencies that helped farming. That’s exactly when a great inversion began.

Rich people suddenly became thin and tanned. They no longer needed to be fat to show wealth and no longer needed to be white to show that they needn’t engage in physical labor. Now, it was the pasty, sedentary office worker who showed poverty, while the slim, active, outdoorsy person radiated wealth and health.

All of the above leads to the underlying ignorance in the fat studies course description from the University of New Mexico. It’s filled with leftist cant, anger, self-loathing, and the usual other garbage that passes for academics today (emphasis mine):

Welcome to SOCI 398.005: Introduction to Fat Studies! This course will consider the structural forces that construct fatness as problematic—as diseased, gross, dirty, lazy, gluttonous, and other negative characteristics—thereby reinforcing antifatness. We will explore the historical development of antifatness and its roots in colonialism, discover the ways in which capitalism benefits from antifatness

Naturally, “women and gender studies, [and] Black studies” will also feature in the little class.

Today, when famine is no longer a constant concern and poverty (sadly) often flows from choices, not circumstances, fat is not a famine problem. Instead, it results from poor life habits and cultures that haven’t yet caught up with the health risks associated with it.

Fat shouldn’t be lauded; it should be discouraged. And sure, in a capitalist society where people will try, as they always do, to ape the wealthy, there’s money to be made from discouraging excess weight. However, that shouldn’t obscure the fact that we are singularly blessed to live in a world where fat is viewed negatively rather than as the highest societal aspiration.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com