Hunger Banquet

In the late nineteenth century, small farmers faced increasing economic insecurities. Millions of tenant farmers were stuck in poverty due to the sharecropping system in the South.Farmers in the south weren't the only ones facing difficult times; farmers in the west had to mortgage their property to purchase seeds, fertilizer, and equipment. Farmers who mortgaged their property faced the chances of losing their farms when they were unable to repay their bank loans. Farmers then sought out to find a solution for their condition by going through the Farmers’ Alliance and the

The three contingencies of Patel’s plan include changing the governing laws of agribusiness, improving the conditions of and supporting rural areas, and changing the role of eating in society. Before much progress can be made, the ways in which businesses are required to operate must change. Without any new legislations to stand in their way, nothing will alter the ways in which they operate or the ways they look to further solidify their dominance. Next, rural growers simply need more help. In current conditions, they barely scrape by due to the increasing demands from their purchasers and the decreasing amounts of compensation collected. Contrary to the original perception, crop subsidies, most associated with corn, provide no help to these smaller farmers. They can’t compete with the mass-growers and their enormous swathes of land. It drives the rural farmers out of those particular markets, and it often prevents them from growing crops their land is most suitable for. Finally, Pollan pushes the idea that there must be a revamp of the meaning of food to consumers. As it stands, people view eating as a task rather than an enjoyable experience. This leads the consumer to think little of the food, especially in ways Michael Pollan insist they must think about the food. This anti-cooking architecture of society is, nonetheless, a self-perpetuating cycle of

The Populists took major issues with the capitalists and monopolies of the era. In their party’s platform (Document A), the Populists say that the land is “concentrated in the hands of the capitalists.” This prevented the small farmer from living the American Dream of building a successful life for himself and his family. A common view for farmers was expressed by James B. Weaver in 1892 (Document F), who believed that the monopolies of the era were “organized to destroy competition and restrain trade.” These large scale farms caused overproduction, causing an “alarming fall in the price of wheat (Document E).” This price fall caused a chain reaction of events that all had the same effect, small farmers being crippled by loss of income.

In the late nineteenth century shortly after the Civil War and Reconstruction, farmers in the Midwestern United States found themselves in quite a predicament. During the second industrial revolution of the United States that contained mass introduction of: railroads, oil, steel, and electricity, the risk-taking entrepreneurs of this era took an adventure into the world of cutthroat capitalism. In just a little time, a handful of monopolies arose in all these industries which hurt both the consumer of the product and the producer of the material (Doc. F). Because of the corrupt politicians in Washington DC, the absence of regulation on the monopolies put into place by bribes and greed or moderation from them, and the devious ways of the

In order to do this, the new Agricultural Adjustment Administration paid landowners to take property out of production. What ended up happening was

In the late 1800’s, America’s farmers faced deep financial insecurity with the fall of agricultural prices that kept them in poverty. Many farmers borrowed money from merchants and banks, and when it came time to repay their loans, they found themselves in the face of losing their land. Their financial troubles mainly attributed to the high freight rates that railroads charged the farmers in order to transport their crops, as well as high interest rates charged by loaners. This financial turmoil lead to the development of the Farmers’ Alliance, which advocated for lower interest rate loans by the Federal Government itself, so that way the farmers didn’t have to depend on independent banks and merchants for financial assistance. The Farmers’ Alliance eventually gained traction in politics and eventually formed itself into the People’s Party, or otherwise known as the Populist Party.

Following the Civil War, a second industrial revolution in America brought many changes to the nation’s agriculture sector. The new technologies that were created transformed how farmers worked and the way in which the sector functioned. Agriculture expanded and became more industrial. Meanwhile government policies, or lack of them for a while, and hard economic conditions put difficult strains on farmers and their occupation. These changes in technology, economic conditions, and government policy from 1865 to 1900 transformed and improved agriculture while leaving farmers in hardship.

As the capitalists continued their corruption, “the wealthy class became wealthier; but the poorer class became more dependant. The gulf between the employed and the employer was growing wider” (Document A). Similarly, many actions performed by these capitalists, contributed to the sorrowful lives of many farmers, who were struggling to survive.

14. Explain why a nation’s GDP is both a good and poor measure of its economic well-being and progress?

Purpose: To persuade my audience to feed people in America that are less fortunate than we are.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) restricted the production of crops. The AAA encouraged farmers to not only limit, but also to “destroy their crops” in an effort to help the economy (“Farm Relief”, 2002, p. 10). While the government attempted to support unsuccessful farmers, landlords took advantage of the opportunity to make a profit. The AAA’s scarcity program allowed for landlords in the cotton-growing regions of the South to force sharecroppers and tenant farmers off of the land (Watkins, 1970, p. 193). As some landowners were outraged at the thought of ruining their produce, others went through with the

In 1890 clergyman Washington Gladden wrote an article called “The Embattled Farmers”. In it he blamed the ruin of the farmers on “protective tariffs, trusts…speculation in farm products, over-greedy middlemen, and exorbitant transportation rates.”

In Janet Poppendieck's “Want Amid Plenty: From Hunger To Inequality” she argues that America puts excessive focus upon hunger issues among the poor when there are many other important issues that go unnoticed. Poppendieck believes that it is time to find a way to shift the discourse from undernutrition to unfairness, from hunger to inequality. In today's society, there are many food banks, food drives, soup kitchens, etc. Food is extremely abundant in America, therefore Poppendieck's statement is proven true when she states that there is too much focus on hunger. Throughout this text, she strongly supports her claims about hunger, equality, and poverty in general.

Growing up on a small family wheat farm in southwestern Oklahoma, I have experienced the harsh conditions of farming firsthand. The job that used to employ the largest amount of people in the United States has lost the support and the respect of the American people. The Jeffersonian Ideal of a nation of farmers has been tossed aside to be replaced by a nation of white-collar workers. The family farm is under attack and it is not being protected. The family farm can help the United States economically by creating jobs in a time when many cannot afford the food in the stores. The family farm can help prevent the degradation of the environment by creating a mutually beneficial relationship between the people producing the food and nature. The family farm is the answer to many of the tough questions facing the United States today, but these small farms are going bankrupt all too often. The government’s policy on farming is the largest factor in what farms succeed, but simple economics, large corporations, and society as a whole influence the decline in family farms; small changes in these areas will help break up the huge corporate farms, keeping the small family farm afloat.

Patel concludes that these systems favor the consumers rather than the producers. He uses Mexican corn as an example. The price of corn in the Mexican market collapsed due to U.S imports. The U.S corn farmers were significantly subsidized by their government, and the poor Mexican farmers had no way to compete. Patel accuses America of using its economic and political power to strong-arm Mexico and other countries under the guise of free trade agreements. With all of the evidence Patel presents on this topic, any reader would have a difficult time disagreeing with this assertion.