removed by mod
Ex-fucking-cuse me?
That’s on point for him. He’s as racist as the day is long.
I imagine his username is supposed to be ironic.
No, I’m positive it’s literal, just like a college girl that says the same thing.
Im pretty happy to get an locally grown products. Im lucky though as we have lots of farmers markets and its not hard to sign up for a monthly box.
Here in Germany we have similar projects, but it seems the producers/farmers often have absolutely no idea how to anticipate or meet the demand of their customers.
Like, I’m very aware that farming is a seasonal business, you can’t really grow much salad during the German winter without a greenhouse. Perfectly fine. What is not fine is dumping basically your entire salad harvest for that season in a 4 week window onto paying customers.
You’ll get 8 salad heads per week for a month or two, almost inevitably throwing or giving most of it away, and then you’ll get 5 kilos of some roots for the next 3 months.
It sorta works this way here. They try their best but there will be a lot of kale. They have this thing were you have some ability to substitute as well
Monthly box subscriptions have always been that though. You’re getting whatever they can’t shift.
I would really like an Imperfect Foods replacement. Originally, IF was scratch and dent ugly veggies on discount with some consignment items. Post covid, prices crept up and then you had to pick and choose to get a deal, but you could still get a good box for under $40 every 2 wks that also included things like farro and yogurt. Misfit Marketplace bought them out and it took on a Whole Foods by mail vibe. Double to triple the regular grocery store prices. It would be $80+/week for the same box content which is galling. And it’s not the groceries, it’s MM. Who is paying $3 for 1 cucumber? $4 for 2 apples? $8 for a single pound of grapes or a pint of blueberries?
New potential produce sources are most welcome.
I had to drop Imperfect Food as well from the same problems. It was just more expensive than I needed. I haven’t found a replacement yet unfortunately. We are now just buying food as needed. I have been interested in a CSA but haven’t done it yet
The unbagged produce was fresher than grocery store and didn’t rot on the shelf in 3 days like post COVID produce from the grocery store tends to do.
So this post has potential.
Just don’t buy meat directly - especially if you are hungry for bat and live in China.
Timely!
I think we should come up with a term for the kind of people to whom the color of a person’s skin is this important.
5 day old account and you’re posting like crazy all over the place.
Now where have I seen that type of behaviour before…
I didn’t know that averaging 10 messages per day is considered “posting like crazy”
Lets hear your theory then about what that means.
There is greater demonstration of community among non white people. As such, theres a built in hook not just for saying hello to a stranger, but for coming together to organize something like this. I think that’s more likely where it’s coming from than what you’re thinking.
Either way, I’d like a better veggie source for the things we don’t grow ourselves.
Do you think there might be a reason their skin color is relevant under the Trump administration?
Edit: Interestingly, your post history shows that you are very interested in skin color yourself.
Interestingly, your post history shows that you are very interested in skin color yourself.
Feel free to dig thru it and post it here for everyone to see.
That sounds like a silly thing to do when it’s publicly available… and notable how often you want to talk about race.
I’ll save them the trouble then and out myself here by posting the only other mention of skin color on my entire post history. Clearly I can’t stop talking about race.
Concluding that someone is a lesser human because of their skin color seems just as illogical to me as calling someone a racist because they drive a lifted truck. These things are completely unrelated.
Who here is concluding that? Can you please present anyone here concluding that?
They’re saying that quote is the only other instance of them talking about skin color in their post history, not that it’s relevant to this thread or the people in it.
I didn’t see anything too egregious in their post history to get worked up over. Some downvotable opinions, sure (in America, a lifted truck is almost guaranteed to be indicative of racism, or at least republicanism.) but not really anything to be mad about.
I only went back 5 days, maybe that’s a limitation for my mobile app, but yeah I also couldn’t find cause to say they can’t stop talking about race.
I’m not worked up over anything. I’m just noting that they bring up the subject of race multiple times in the couple of pages of their history I looked at.
It’s a big subject at the moment. Palestinians v Israel, China v uyghurs, trump v everybody, it’s not unreasonable to mention these things in context. According to their posts, it seems they’re from Finland. I’ve never been, and don’t pretend to know a whole lot about Finland other than their war with Russia and simo hayha (due to my US army background) but I would be surprised if I found out that Finland had an issue with race, honestly. So does talking about race during a time when race is a big world issue automatically make them racist? No, it’s a discussion topic, and they never said anything racist. Don’t press that button unnecessarily, or it becomes meaningless.
I never called anyone a racist. In fact, I was the one being called a racist for posting this in the first place.
Ehhhh you did go through their post history looking for something to be mad about because you disagreed with something they said. Neither of you have said anything racist. We need to remember who the bad people really are, those who do, or wish harm on others. Let’s try consolidating instead of separating.
Again, I never called anyone a racist.
It’s not about their skin color to me. It’s more about a likeliness that they’re not a Republican. Yes, I know, there are black Republicans, but it’s less likely.
We do: “Republicans”
Anti-white nationalists? Or anti-MAGAts?
Just spitballin here…
I think you are conflating where the “importance” has come from. A person can recognize that skin color does not matter. They can also recognize that the system they live in places a huge importance on skin color through endemic systems that have been in place for decades. How do you counteract an unbalanced system? By sticking your fingers in your ears and going “it doesn’t matter” or by seeking out those who are trying to make a change?
Unfortunately, for some folks it’s never enough. Why only black folks? Why not disabled folks? Why not indigenous folks? Etc. But you have to start somewhere - and many people aren’t even trying. My point is that projects like this are a start. They’re not going to solve every issue but they’re trying to make a difference and I think that’s neat.
I wouldn’t agree with “sticking fingers in my ears and saying it doesn’t matter” being a fair representation of what I’m trying to say here.
I would claim that in the case of person’s skin color we truly shouldn’t care about it any more than we care about the color of their hair or eyes. It’s it’s a description of appearance, not a reflection of who they are. If we want to live in a world where this is the case, then my argument is that paying more attention to it is not the way to go. I’m sure the people behind this have good intentions but it’s the method I disagree with here.
I apologize for implying that.
You’re right that we shouldn’t care, but how do we help those who have been disenfranchised if we don’t identify them? Advocacy isn’t about caring about appearance over character, it’s is about shining a light on systematically disenfranchised groups of people so that we can support them.
Despite what the Fascists would erase from history and science, critical race theory is like the theory of gravity, it’s absolutely correct and all around us.
African Americans have never been made whole since their ancestors were brought here as slaves. They’ve never been the primary or equal beneficiaries of the generational windfalls that have occurred here. They’ve been sabotaged at every step. Ever heard of Tulsa?
It’s ridiculous how many people shriek get over it when Jim Crow is still well in living memory. When African American families get substantial reparations for what was done to their families over and over generationally, so never, then you’d have a leg to stand on.
Lots of deadlinks and farming alliances with mission statements.
Not a lot of links to buy food from farmers.
Yeah, this isn’t being maintained. All the ones near me are dead websites.
My local link was dead but easy enough to find on FB. I’m going to drop by when I’m in town, see what they got.
Just Google “CSA <your city>”
It’s a bit sad that it’s just the “black farmers”. If possible, getting your stuff from a local market or even a farmer is always a good thing, no matter if it’s a black or white farmer. I have that here in austria where I get most of my meat and cheese directly from the farmer and it’s not just insanely tasty but also cheaper than from the grocery store.
Strong communities thrive together.
So every “farm” in my region is actually a community plot you can rent space in or a non profit outreach…no farms to purchase from.
I rather not give people money by merit of the colour of their skin, though. Fuck me, right?
No one said fuck you lol
Yeah, that’s not what’s happening.
But keep playing the victim.
The fact that it’s cheaper for you and they get paid more than the middle man would pay should be enough for you.
Sadly and unsurprisingly, nothing near me. On the bright side, we do have a farmer’s market so I’ll just continue to patron that and say that if you have one near you, definitely check them out!
UK here but in my experience farmers markets cost vastly more. Shame because if a farmer just asked for cash and I can fill a sack of potatoes myself for less cost than a supermarket I would go for it. I don’t need a fancy hipster shop front.
Problem with farmers market is it costs farmers to have the stall there (rent the space), to move all their produce and they even need to man it. Which is bassically what a supermarket does, but in bulk so it’s cheaper. In theory you would have to go directly to the farms for a discount.
Stalls cost jack around here. $30 for the main market downtown, $20 at either flea market. Manning it ain’t much when you have a family doing it for free and it’s only on Saturday.
Farm shops, so literally on the farm. Are also very expensive! The ones I see are usually targeting the middle class market so I don’t really go there. I would go to a barn if it was cheaper than a supermarket
Honestly a shame with those farmers. Unfortunately why I had to include “in theory”
It’s cool, but buying produce from your neighbors is also cool. Strong communities thrive together
It’s cool, but buying produce from your neighbors is also cool.
Um… My neighbors are black you fucking prick.
Okay, buy produce from your black neighbors then.
Whats the problem?
My point was that the comment I replied to was a ridiculous false dichotomy.
Thank you! I did not know that. Last news that I heard about black farmers was about then getting screwed by massive ag conglomerates.
Region 5; Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. Why are Ohio and Wisconsin grouped with the same link?
I imagine for the same reason Iowa and Nebraska are on the same page. https://blackfarmersindex.com/reg-7-iowa-and-nebraska
Wisconsin and Nebraska have such a small list that they’d be a waste of a page, I guess.
I kind of figured that was the reason, but seems like such a weak reason.
How is this not racist? If there were a service where you could choose to buy directly from white farmers peoples would lose their minds
How is this meme relevant here? Who are the groups of people supposed to represent?
Black farmers weren’t welcome in white corporations and co-ops. So they made their own. And now white people are mad.
deleted by creator
Well why do you think it is? Genuinely curious
Because racism is the discrimination of someone based on their ethnicity. If you are choosing one person over another due solely to their ethnicity, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t people be judged not by the color of their skin? Explicitly advertising that you are selective solely based on race is racism.
I have seen this discussion happen over and over again and a big part of the misunderstanding is some people in the US have the definition of racism also involving power and some don’t. If your definition is the former, it’s what allows people to say “Fuck white people” isn’t racist with a straight face. Before you ask someone if something is racist, ask them what they think racism is. It will save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone.
It doesn’t matter what their definition of racism is. “Fuck white people” is racist.
To be clear, I’m 100% with you, just pointing out some troubles I had when discussing racism in the past and I found out we weren’t all on the same page.
Some white people have no power and some black people have loads of it. Can we just stop this categorization of people by race for if they can or can’t do something?
deleted by creator
Your comment made me think of this:
This is a remedial question, but that doesn’t make it a bad question. It is a hard problem to solve, and calling an advantage based on race somehow not racist does sound paradoxical at first glance. It’s important to be able to entertain the explanation without outright assuming you’re being attacked by a bunch of obtuse racists.
Hopefully we agree that:
- black americans are at a statistically significant socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white americans, both historically and to this day, and
- this is a direct result of a history of systematic disadvantages specifically targeting them based on their race
Let’s pretend the second bullet point has been solved, that systemic racism is over and done, and we’ve established a perfectly equal union. Even if that’s the case, we are left with the first bullet point as an ongoing problem. The challenge is now, how do you undo the very apparent damage that our history of racism caused, without specifically giving advantages to that group based on their race? And the short answer to a very complex question is: you can’t.
So the US government instituted “Affirmative Action” the goal of which was to deliberately give a targeted advantage to people who have had a history of targeted disadvantages in this country. This catches you up to roughly the 1960s.
But in the last 40 years or so, we continue to see lower class areas of the US disproportionately filled with black americans, and we also see widening wealth inequality affecting virtually everyone. So naturally we also see an increase of non-black people asking the same question as you: “I’m having a hard time too, why are they getting an advantage based on their race? That’s racism!”
The solution was to tax the rich, reduce wealth inequality, and continue to normalize disproportionate demographics. Instead, the wealthy used populism to hijack the republican party, and convince white americans that the minorities recieving these benefits were their enemy. And after 40ish years of pushing this narrative, they succeeded.
With the republican takeover of the federal govt, we can be virtually assured that any ongoing attempts to normalize these unfair demographics will be abandoned, at least at the federal level.
But it’s still a problem, just now one for the people and the states to solve. If you want to support black-owned farmers in an attempt to help pull historically disadvantaged groups out of poverty, you can. If not, that’s fine, just at least please vote for legislation that intends to reduce wealth inequality. (Note that history has exactly two ways of reducing wealth inequality: high taxes on the rich, or war. The question isn’t whether wealth will get redistributed, it’s how).
Tl; dr Yeah, it’s an advantage based on race to solve a problem caused by a history of disadvantages based on race.
Lol. Lmao.
There is a service to buy directly from white farmers. There’s a bunch of them, including just going to the grocery store.
Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
deleted by creator
Should we just stop using statistics then? Numbers don’t matter if they are about people? (I genuinely want an answer here. Should we?)
Statistically, one societal class of people needs more support than the other to have the exact same quality of life, generational wealth, and opportunities. Thus, when deciding who to buy, in this case, produce from, it simply makes sense to purchase from the group most disadvantaged, until their disadvantage is no bigger than the other group, and we can then switch from buying from “small black farmers directly” to “all small farmers directly,” because all of them would then need a near identical level of support, financially speaking, to get the same outcomes.
deleted by creator
Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.
Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.
In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.
On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:
- Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
- Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
- Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)
Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?
This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.
This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.
You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.
deleted by creator
Of course there are, but as has already been shown through many attempts at creating welfare programs that directly test the means of the recipients, the administrative cost to provide funds to people based on highly specific factors about themselves (e.g. total net worth, rate of income, spending, cost to employ farm employees, profit margins, etc etc etc) can cost significantly more than blanket assistance.
It’s one of the reasons why UBI works so well compared to traditional welfare in administrative costs, since it doesn’t need to be means tested.
Now obviously this isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but let’s say we create an index just like the one at question here, but it’s specifically the “poor farmer’s index.” To do so, we need to:
- Request extensive documentation from all farmers applying
- Somebody then has to verify the net assets, income, expenses, etc of all farmers who apply to be listed in the index via that paperwork…
- …and continue to verify that data over time, as it obviously changes year-to-year. The eligibility of every participant would have to be re-verified regularly, otherwise someone could become not poor, but stay in the index. This is a perpetual expense that grows linearly over time as more people are added to the index.
Who will do that work? Now somebody needs to be paid to do this, or spend many hours doing volunteer work just to verify eligibility. Now, in the end yes, that kind of system would be ideal for determining who needs the most help, and I would pick that system every time over a “black farmers index” if it existed in a functional form.
The problem is that it has significantly higher costs and requires consistent administration over time, something that is obviously hard to expect from a random volunteer project that, based on their staff information, only has 2 “Data Entry and Logistics” roles that are currently filled. Imagine two people handling the ingesting, data entry, and administrative tasks for all the farmers applying to this index across the entire United States, having to verify every single individual’s financial situation. It’s difficult, and costly.
So yes, as I stated just earlier in this comment, and in my original post, of course I’d prefer an index that directly assesses the economic viability of every individual. However, because doing so is costly, and we know that race is a good proxy for the estimation of general wealth, it makes sense to use that for a small, relatively inexpensive, independently run online site, that now only needs to verify one factor, that doesn’t change over time, to get a good enough approximation of lack of wealth.
This entire discussion revolves not around the ideals of what we should have, but what is feasible. If it is not feasible at the current point in time for such an organization to directly assess the needs of individuals, it makes sense to use a substantially cheaper to assess proxy, instead of not being able to have any index at all.
If the concern is economic disadvantages, shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color? Maybe selling products from poor and independent farmers. A portion of every race is economically disadvantaged.
Edit: I really appreciate your response. I think you described the issue really well.
shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color?
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
So by buying milk from black farmers, you will help:
- many poor black people
- some rich black people
Whereas by buying milk from poor farmers, you will help:
- many poor black people
- some poor white people
How exactly is the former better than the latter?
Both are good. Each behaviour is a response to a different problem. Refer again to my footrace analogy.
Well, only 2 within reasonable distance. One only sells microgreen kits. The other appears to be a supplier for restaurants, etc.
I zipped them an email to ask about private sales. But, definitely nothing on their website about sales and shipping to the public.
