 |
| "The Dangerous Cooks" (1896) by James Ensor |
Soni reports that when Rajan was frustrated by the malnourishment he was enduring while working at Signal, he "grabbed a cook by the collar, yanked him off the serving line, and starting beating him" (205). Instead of being fired for this offense, Rajan was given permission to use the company's facilities to cook for himself.
Why do you think Signal didn't fire him? Why did they make a concession?
Why did Rajan take his anger out on the cook and not on the administrators responsible for managing the kitchen? Or those responsible for its budget? What might have happened to him if he did?
Answer these questions only after you've read part four, chapter eight.
In response to the last three questions:
ReplyDeleteHe took his anger out on the cooks because when someone is angry, they direct that anger towards the people they have easy access to whether it was their fault or not. While it may not have been the cooks fault, they had something to do with the reason he was angry - they made the food that was barely edible. Another reason he may not have taken his anger out on the administrators is because that would have gotten him deported. The cooks don't have that power, but the administrators do. Besides the power difference between the two the administrators would have been much harder to reach, as he would have had to jump through hurdles just to meet them.
If he had chosen to get angry at administrators, and hit them the way he had the cook, they would not have hesitated to deport him. Chances are, they would have filed charges against him as well. If that had happened he would have been in trouble with the law, which would have led to more debt than what he already had.
I think Signal did not fire Rajan because they knew if one man was frustrated to the point of beating cooks, the others would not be far behind with their anger. I think Signal also knew if they let Rajan cook, they could count it as a “luxury” the men get despite edible food being a basic necessity. They also had Rajan buy groceries out of his paycheck, meaning saving money and avoiding riots at the same time. Rajan probably knew taking his anger out on higher-ups would mean automatically being sent back to his country. This shows how the workers constantly feared the company, even in fits of anger.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Signal did not fire or deport Rajan due to the fact that if one individual was mad, more workers were soon to follow. Also, in part, I believe this was done to make the signal come off as helpful to their workers, which in reality was not the case. Rajan was angry at not only the malnourishment but also the quality of the rice he was given, which I believe played a key role in his decision to assault the chef, along with the fact that the chef was there and the supervisors were not. It states in the passage that when he took the kitchen over, there were ingredients and means for cooking; they were just not being taken advantage of. If Rajan had assaulted someone in power, he likely would have been deported, if not prosecuted.
DeleteI think that Signal did not fire Rajan because they wanted to seem reasonable to the other Indian workers. If they would have sent someone back to India for taking a stand because of the living conditions, the rest of the men would be more scared and angry than they already were. I think that Rajan took his anger out on the cook because he wanted to make a scene and was furious. He wanted Signal to see his frustration and he also wanted to hurt the cook.
ReplyDeleteI believe the company knew they were in the wrong, considering that they started on the wrong foot in the first place. By cutting corners and minimizing the necessities of the workers, they had already begun to set a path forward that would dehumanize and mistreat the workers. Signal is a big company that can easily hold power over the employees’ heads, keeping them “trapped” and under their control. The workers knew this, of course. All they had to do was look around to see the injustice of it all. But even still, it wasn’t the company they could fight. Too much was at stake. Debts piling up, and loan sharks circling in. I can’t even imagine how powerless they must have felt. I believe the rice was the last straw for Rajan. The bathrooms, shower spaces, and cramped quarters were things that fell to the power of the higher-ups, whereas the grievances of food could be taken to the cooks. It is understandable for Rajan to be angry with the cooks, even if he knew it was the company that supplied the food. They were, after all, the ones who made the food which he grew tired of. I believe his decision to fight the cook was a necessary evil, considering it was that which got him into the kitchen. I also think it was wrong of them to take his pay to feed the men, but it did seem to bring up the spirits of all in the camp, especially those already on the brink of despair.
ReplyDeleteIn answering the question, "Why did Rajan take his anger out on the cook and not on the administrators responsible for managing the kitchen?" Rajan was fed up. Rajan was "hungry, nauseated, drowsy" according to page 204, and he had been for days. Only now it wasn't just putting Rajan's life at risk; it was affecting others. He could have killed someone. This was Rajan's breaking point, and that says a lot about his character more than anything. So yeah, he marched up to a cook to beat a cook "just enough that he got the point" (205) because it was not just affecting Rajan but was going to affect others. I think he went to the cooks instead of the administration because, as a cook himself, it was more personal to him, even though he probably knew it wasn't the cook's fault necessarily. It's like if you've ever worked retail; when you go into a store, you notice things that only someone who's worked retail would notice. You start re-folding shirts or placing things back on hangers. I don't think he went to who was in charge of the budget for this very reason. Also, he was eating lunch when this happened, and the next person in line was the cook. I think Signal did not fire Rajan because if they did, it would just be another problem from a different man down the road. They put an end to it now rather than losing valuable members and having to explain that. Basically, they were saying you sometimes have to pick your battles, and they just chose not to fight this one, at the expense of taking the groceries out of his paycheck, of course.
ReplyDelete