This meme has, somewhat, and in a sense, been covered before.
Read Heinlein’s ‘Farnham’s Freehold’.
Written in 1965, but still a little poignant.
Is it about people eating dogs?
Or worse—is it about presidential candidates eating them?
Both Farnham's Freehold and Sixth Column, another novel by Heinlein, deal extensively with issues of race, but whereas Sixth Column is perceived as racist by some readers, Farnham's Freehold depends for its impact on twisting the racial roles: in a future dominated by people of African ancestry, a culture technologically advanced enough to develop time travel also practices race-based slavery and institutionalized cannibalism.
Some have argued that the portrayal of the black ruling caste as cannibalistic, polygynous, drug-providing tyrants with a preference for Caucasian women uses most of the available racist stereotypes about Africans and African-Americans. Another interpretation posits that the cannibalism and sexual predation of the dark-skinned masters is allegorical, representing the way that black slaves were historically taken advantage of by their masters.
This is similar to the "Durham's Pure Leaf Lard" theme in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Proponents of the allegory theory point out that in the second half of the story, Farnham describes a place in the West Indies where the blacks are cultured and sophisticated, and whites are feckless and shiftless, and that Heinlein then plays out a traditional slave narrative with Farnham as the narrator. From this point of view, the story is not about Africans and Caucasians, but rather about masters and slaves, regardless of race.
It is also interesting to note Farnham's second in command was not his son, but their black domestic servant. This servant, Joseph, was also going to college to become an accountant, and was also described as the best bridge player of the group.