lappe and collins - why cant poor people feed themselves

lappe and collins - why cant poor people feed themselves -...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 7 Why Can’t People Feed Themselves?- FRANCES MOORE LAPPE AND JOSEPH COLLINS Question:ch have said that the hunger problem is not the result ofoverpopulation. But you have not answered the most basic and simple question ofall: Why can’t peoplefled themselves? As Senator Daniel P. Moynihan put it bluntly, when addressing himself to the Third World, “Food growing is the first thing you do when you come down out of the trees. The question is, how come the United States can grow food and you can’t?” Our Response: In the very first speech I, Frances, eber gave after writing Diet for a Small Planet, I tried to talee my audience along the path that I had taleen in attempting to understand why so many are hungry in this world. Here is the gist of that talle that was, in truth, a turning point in my lyre: hen I started I saw a world divided into two parts: a minority of nations that had “taken off” through their agricultural and industrial revolutions to reach a level of unparalleled material abundance and a majority that remained behind in a primitive, tradi— tional, undeveloped state. This lagging behind of the majority of the world’s peo— ples must be due,I thought, to some inter— nal deficiency or even to several of them. It seemed obvious that the underdevel— oped countries must be deficient in natu— ral resources—particularly good land and climate—and in cultural development, including modern attitudes conducive to work and progress. But when looking for the historical roots of the predicament, I learned that my pic— ture of these two separate worlds was quite false. My “two separate worlds” were really just different sides of the same coin. One side was on top largely because the other side was on the bottom. Could this be true? How were these separate worlds related? Colonialism appeared to me to be the link. Colonialism destroyed the cultural From Frances Moore Lappé and Joseph Collins, Food First, 1978. pp. 75—85. Copyright © 1978 Institute for Food and Development Policy. Reprinted by permission of Ballantine Books, a Division of Random House Inc. WHY CAN’T PEOPLE FEED THEMSELVES? V 39 patterns of production and exchange by which traditional societies in “underdevel- oped” countries previously had met the needs of the people. Many precolonial social structures, while dominated by exploitative elites, had evolved a system of mutual obligations among the classes that helped to ensure at least a minimal diet for all. A friend of mine once said: “Precolonial village existence in subsis— tence agriculture was a limited life indeed, but it’s certainly not Calcutta.”The misery of starvation in the streets of Calcutta can only be understood as the end—point of a long historical process—one that has destroyed a traditional social system. “Underdeveloped,” instead of being an adjective that evokes the picture of a static society, became for me a verb (to “under— develop”) meaning the process by which the minority of the world has trans— formed—indeed often robbed and degraded—the majority. That was in 1972. I clearly recall my thoughts on my return home. I had stated publicly for the first time a world view that had taken me years ofstudy to grasp. The sense of relief was tremendous. For me the breakthrough lay in realizing that today’s “hunger crisis” could not be described in static, descriptive terms. Hunger and underdevelopment must always be thought of as a process. To answer the question “why hunger?” it is counterproductive to simply describe the condi— tions in an underdeveloped country today. For these (\ionditions, whether they be the degree of malnutrition, the levels of agricultural prdduc— tion, or even the country’s ecological endow— ment, are not static factors—they are not “givens.”They are rather the results of an ongoing historical process. As we dug ever deeper into that historical process for the preparation of this book, we. began to discover the existence of scarcity— creating mechanisms that we had only vaguely intuited before. We have gotten great satisfaction from prob— ing into the past since we recognized it is the only way to approach a solution to hunger today. We have come to see that it is the force creating the condition, not the condition itself, that must be the target of change. Otherwise we might change the condition today, only to find tomorrow that it has been recreated—with a vengeance. Asking the question “Why can’t people feed themselves?” carries a sense of bewilderment that there are so many people in the world not able to feed themselves adequately. What astonished us, however, is that there are not more people in the world who are hungry—considering the weight of the centuries of effort by the few to undermine the capacity of the majority to feed themselves. No, we are not crying “conspiracy!” If these forces were entirely conspiratorial, they would be easier to detect and many more people would by now have risen up to resist. We are talking about something more subtle and insidious; a heritage of colonial order in which people with the advantage of considerable power sought their own self—interest, often arrogantly believing they were acting in the interest of the people whose lives they were destroying. THE COLONIAL MIND The colonizer viewed agriculture in the subju— gated lands as primitive and backward. Yet such a View contrasts sharply with the documents from the colonial period now coming to light. For example,A. J.Voelker, a British agricultural scien— tist assigned to India during the 18903, wrote: Nowhere would one find better instances of keeping land scrupulously clean from weeds, of ingenuity in device of water— raising appliances, of knowledge of soils and their capabilities, as well as of the exact time to sow and reap, as one would find in Indian agriculture. It is wonderful, too, how much is known of rotation, the system of “mixed crops” and of fallowing. . . . I, at least, have never seen a more per- fect picture of cultivation.”1 40 CHAPTER 2 THE WORLD ECONOMY AND WORLD POVERTY None the less, viewing the agriculture of the vanquished as primitive and backward reinforced the colonizer’s rationale for destroying it. To the colonizers ofAfrica,Asia, and Latin America, agri— culture became merely a means to extract wealth—much as gold from a mine—on behalf of the colonizing power. Agriculture was no longer seen as a source of food for the local population, nor even as their livelihood. Indeed the English economistjohn Stuart Mill reasoned that colonies should not be thought of as civilizations 0r coun— tries at all but as “agricultural establishments” whose sole purpose was to supply the “larger com— munity to which they belong.” The colonized society’s agriculture was only a subdivision of the agricultural system ofthe metropolitan country. As Mill acknowledged, “OurWest India colonies, for example, cannot be regarded as countries. . . .The West Indies are the place where England/ind; it convenient to carry on the production of sugar, cof- fee and a few other tropical commodities.”2 Prior to European intervention, Africans practiced a diversified agriculture that included the introduction of new food plants of Asian or American origin. But colonial rule simplified this diversified production to single cash crops—often to the exclusion of staple foods—and in the process sowed the seeds of famine.3 Rice farming once had been common in Gambia. But with colonial rule so much of the best land was taken over by peanuts (grown for the European market) that rice had to be imported to counter the mounting prospect of famine. Northern Ghana, once famous for its yams and other foodstuffs, was forced to concentpate solely on cocoa. Most of the Gold Coastl thus became dependent on cocoa. Liberia was turned into a virtual planta— tion subsidiary of Firestone Tire and Rubber. Food production in Dahomey and southeast Nigeria was all but abandoned in favor of palm oil; Tanganyika (now Tanzania) was forced to focus on sisal and Uganda on cotton. The same happened in Indochina. About the time of the American Civil War the French decided that the Mekong Delta inVietnam would be ideal for producing rice for export. Through a production system based on enriching the large landowners, Vietnam became the world’s third largest exporter of rice by the 19305; yet many landlessVietnamese went hungry.4 Rather than helping the peasants, colonialism’s public works programs only reinforced export crop production. British irrigation works built in nineteenth—century India did help increase pro— duction, but the expansion was for spring export crops at the expense of millets and legumes grown in the fall as the basic local food crops. Because people living on the land do not eas— ily go against their natural and adaptive drive to grow food for themselves, colonial powers had to force the production of cash crops. The first strat- egy was to use physical or economic force to get the local population to grow cash crops instead of food on their own plots and then turn them over to the colonizer for export. The second strategy was the direct takeover of the land by large—scale plantations growing crops for export. FORCED PEASANT PRODUCTION As Walter Rodney recounts in How Europe Underdeucloped Africa, cash crops were often grown literally under threat of guns and whips.5 One vis— itor to the Sahel commented in 1928: “Cotton is an artificial crop and one the value ofwhich is not entirely clear to the natives. . .” He wryly noted the “enforced enthusiasm with which the natives . . . have thrown themselves into . . . planting cotton?“ The forced cultivation of cotton was a major grievance leading to the Maji Maji wars in Tanzania (then Tanganyika) and behind the nationalist revolt in Angola as late as 1960.7 «Although raw force was used, taxation was the preferred colonial technique to force Africans to grow cash crops. The colonial administrations simply levied taxes on cattle, land, houses, and even the people themselves. Since the tax had to be paid in the coin of the realm, the peasants had either to grow crops to sell or to work on the plantations or in the mines of the Europeans.8 Taxation was both an effective tool to “stimulate” cash cropping and a source of revenue that the colonial bureaucracy needed to enforce the sys— tem, To expand their production of export crops to pay the mounting taxes, peasant producers WHY CAN’T PEOPLE FEED THEMSELVES? 41 were forced to neglect the farming offood crops. In 1830, the Dutch administration in Java made the peasants an offer they could not refuse; ifthey would grow government—owned export crops on one fifth of their land, the Dutch would remit their land taxes.() If they refused and thus could not pay the taxes, they lost their land. Marketing boards emerged in Africa in the 1930s as another technique for getting the profit from cash crop production by native producers into the hands of the colonial government and international firms. Purchases by the marketing boards were well below the world market price. Peanuts bought by the boards from peasant culti— vators in West Africa were sold in Britain for more than seven times what the peasants received.10 The marketing board concept was born with the “cocoa hold—up” in the Gold Coast in 1937. Small cocoa farmers refused to sell to the large cocoa concerns like United Africa Company (a subsidiary Anglo—Dutch firm, Unilever—Which we know as Lever Brothers) and Cadbury until they got a higher price. When the British govern— ment stepped in and agreed to buy the cocoa directly in place of the big business concerns, the smallholders must have thought they had scored at least a minor Victory. But had they really? The fol— lowing year the British formally set up the West African Cocoa Control Board. Theoretically, its purpose was to pay the peasants a reasonable price for their crops. in practice, however, the board, as sole purchaser, was able hold down the prices paid the peasants for their crops when the world prices were rising. Rodney sums up the real “victory;’: None of the benefits went to Africans, but rather to the British government itself and to the private companies. . . Big companies like the UnitedAfrican Company andjohn Holt were given . . . quotas to fulfill on behalf of the boards. As agents of the gov— ernment, they were no longer exposed to direct attack, and their profits were secure. 11 These marketing boards, set up for most export crops, were actually controlled by the companies. The chairman ofthe Cocoa Board was none other thanjohn Cadbury of Cadbury Brothers (ever had a Cadbury chocolate bar?) who was part of a buy- ing pool exploiting West African cocoa farmers. The marketing boards funneled part of the profits from the exploitation of peasant producers indirectly into the royal treasury. While the Cocoa Board sold to the British Food Ministry at low prices, the ministry upped the price for British manufacturers, thus netting a profit as high as 11 million pounds in some years.12 These marketing boards of Africa were only the institutionalized rendition of what is the essence of colonialism—the extraction of wealth. While profits continued to accrue to foreign interests and local elites, prices received by those actually growing the commodities remained low. PLANTATIONS A second approach was direct takeover ofthe land either by the colonizing government or by pri— vate foreign interests. Previously self—provisioning farmers were forced to cultivate the plantation fields through either enslavement or economic coercion. After the conquest of the Kandyan Kingdom (in present day Sri Lanka), in 1815, the British designated all the vast central part of the island as crown land. When it was determined that coffee, a profitable export crop, could be grown there, the Kandyan lands were sold off to British investors and planters at a mere five shillings per acre, the government even defraying the cost of surveying and road building.13 Java is also a prime example of a colonial gov— ernment seizing territory and then putting it into private foreign hands. In 1870, the Dutch declared all uncultivated land—called waste land—property of the state for lease to Dutch plantation enterprises. In addition, the Agrarian Land Law of 1870 authorized foreign companies to lease Village—owned land. The peasants, in chronic need of ready cash for taxes and foreign consumer goods, were only too willing to lease their land to the foreign companies for very mod— est sums and under terms dictated by the firms. Where land was still held communally, the Village 42 CHAPTER 2 THE WORLD ECONOMY AND WORLD POVERTY headman was tempted by high cash commissions offered by plantation companies. He would lease the village land even more cheaply than would the individual peasant or, as was frequently the case, sell out the entire village to the company.14 The introduction of the plantation meant the divorCe of agriculture from nourishment, as the notion of food value was lost to the overriding claim of “market value” in international trade. Crops such as sugar, tobacco, and coffee were selected, not on the basis of how well they feed people, but for their high price value relative to their weight and bulk so that profit margins could be maintained even after the costs of shipping to Europe. SUPPRESSING PEASANT FARMING The stagnation and impoverishment of the peas— ant food-producing sector was not the mere by- product of benign neglect, that is, the unintended consequence of an overemphasis on export pro— duction. Plantationse—just like modern “agro— industrial complexes”——needed an abundant and readily available supply of low—wage agricultural workers. Colonial administrations thus devised a variety of tactics, all to undercut self—pr0visioning agriculture and thus make rural populations dependent on plantation wages. Government services and even the most minimal infrastructure (access to water, roads, seeds, credit, pest and dis- ease control information, and so on) were system— atically denied. Plantations usurped most of the good land, either making much of the rural pop— ulation landless or pushing them onto marginal soils. (Yet the plantations have often held much of their land idle simply to prevent the peasants from using it—even to this day. Del Monte owns 57,000 acres of Guatemala but plants only 9000. The rest lies idle except for a few thousand head of grazing cattle.)15 In some cases a colonial administration would go even further to guarantee itself a labor supply. In at least twelve countries in the eastern and southern parts of Africa the exploitation of mineral wealth (gold, diamonds, and copper) and the establishment of cash—crop plantations demanded a continuous supply of low-cost labor. To assure this labor supply, colonial administrations simply expropriated the land of the African communities by violence and drove the people into small reserves. 16\X/ith neither adequate land for their traditional slash-and—burn methods nor access to the means—tools, water, and fertilizer—to make continuous farming of such limited areas viable, the indigenous population could scarcely meet subsistence needs, much less produce surplus to sell in order to cover the colo— nial taxes. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were forced to become the cheap labor source so “needed” by the colonial plantations. Only by laboring on plantations and in the mines could they hope to pay the colonial taxes, The tax scheme to produce reserves of cheap plantation and mining labor was particularly effective when the Great Depression hit and the bottom dropped out of cash crop economies. In 1929 the cotton market collapsed, leaving peasant cotton producers, such as those in Upper Volta, unable to pay their colonial taxes. More and more young people, in some years as many as 80,000, were thus forced to migrate to the Gold Coast to compete with each other for low-wage jobs on cocoa plantations.17 The forced migration of Africa’s most able— bodied workers—stripping village food farming of needed hands—was a recurring feature of colonialism. As late as 1973 the Portuguese “exported” 400,000 Mozambican peasants to work in South Africa in exchange for gold deposited in the Lisbon treasury. The many techniques of colonialism to under- cut self—provisioning agriculture in order to ensure a cheap labor supply are no better illustrated than by the story of how, in the mid-nineteenth cen— tury, sugar plantation owners in British Guiana coped with the double blow of the emancipation of slaves and the crash in the world sugar market. The story is graphically recounted by Alan Adamson in Sugar Without Slat/€5.18 Would the ex—slaves be allowed to take over the plantation land and grow the food they needed? The planters, many ruined by the sugar WHY CAN'T PEOPLE FEED TH£MSELVES7 43 slump, were determined they would not. The planter—dominated government devised several schemes for thwarting food self—sufficiency. The price of crown land was kept artificially high, and the purchase of land in parcels smaller than 100 acres was outlawedm-two measures guaranteeing that newly organized eX—slave cooperatives could not hope to gain access to much land. The gov— ernment also prohibited cultivation on as much as 400,000 acres—on the grounds of “uncertain property titles.” Moreover, although many planters held part of their land out of sugar pro— duction due to the depressed world price, they would not allow any alternative production on them. They feared that once the ex—slaves started growing food it would be difficult to return them to sugar production when world market prices began to recover. In addition, the government taxed peasant production, then turned around and used the funds to subsidize the immigration of laborers from India and Malaysia to replace the freed slaves, thereby making sugar production again profitable for the planters. Finally, the gov— ernment neglected the infrastructure for subsis- tence agriculture and denied credit for small farmers. Perhaps the most insidious tactic to “lure” the peasant away from food production——and the one with profound historical consequences—was a policy of keeping the price of imported food low through the removal of tariffs and subsidies. The policy was double—edged: first, peasants were told they need not grow food because they'could always buy it cheaply with their plantation wages; second, cheap food imports destroyed the market for domestic food and thereby impoverished local food producers. Adamson relates how both the Governor of British Guiana and the Secretary for the Colonies Earl Grey favored low duties on imports in order to erode local food production and thereby release labor for the plantations. In 1851 the gov- ernor rushed through a reduction of the duty on cereals in order to “divert” labor to the sugar estates. As Adamson comments, “Without realiz— ing it, he [the governor] had put his finger on the most mordant feature of monoculture: . . . its convulsive need to destroy any other sector of the economy which might compete for ‘its’ labor.”19 Many colonial governments succeeded in establishing dependence on imported foodstuffs. In 1647 an observer in the West Indies wrote to GovernorWinthrop of Massachusetts:“Men are so intent upon planting sugar that they had rather buy foode at very deare rates than produce it by labour, so infinite is the profitt of sugar workes . . 3’20 By 1770, the West Indies were importing most of the continental colonies’ exports of dried fish, grain, beans, and vegetables. A dependence on imported food made the West Indian colonies vulnerable to any disruption in supply. This dependence on imported food stuffs spelled disaster when the thir- teen continental colonies gained independence and food exports from the continent to the West Indies were interrupted. With no diversified food system to fall back on, 15,000 plantation workers died offamine between 1780 and 1787 injamaica alone.21 The dependence of the West Indies on imported food persists to this day. SUPPRESSING PEASANT COMPETITION We have talked about the techniques by which indigenous populations were forced to cultivate cash crops. In some countries with large planta— tions, however, colonial governments found it necessary to prevent peasants from independently growing cash crops not out of concern for their welfare, but so that they would not compete with colonial interests growing the same crop. For peasant farmers, given a modicum of opportunity, proved themselves capable of outproducing the large plantations not only in terms of output per unit of land but, more important, in terms of cap— ital cost per unit produced. In the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia and Dutch New Guinea) colonial policy in the mid- dle of the nineteenth century forbade the sugar refineries to buy sugar cane from indigenous growers and imposed a discriminatory tax on rubber produced by native smallholders.22 A recent unpublished United Nations study of 44 CHAPTER 2 THE WORLD ECONOMY AND WORLD POVERTY agricultural development in Africa concluded that large—scale agricultural operations owned and controlled by foreign commercial interests (such as the rubber plantations of Liberia, the sisal estates of Tanganyika [Tanzania], and the coffee estates of Angola) only survived the competition of peasant producers because “the authorities actively supported them by suppressing indige— nous rural development.”23 The suppression of indigenous agricultural development served the interests of the colonizing powers in two ways. Not only did it prevent direct competition from more efficient native producers of the same crops, but it also guaranteed a labor force to work on foreign—owned estates. Planters and foreign investors were not unaware that peas— ants who could survive economically by their own production would be under less pressure to sell their labor cheaply to the large estates. The answer to the question, then, “Why can’t people feed themselves?” must begin with an understanding of how colonialism actively pre— vented people from doing just that. Colonialism I forced peasants to replace food crops with cash crops that were then expropriated at very low rates; I took over the best agricultural land for export crop plantations and then forced the most able—bodied workers to leave the village fields to work as slaves or for very low wages on plantations; I encouraged a dependence on imported food; I blocked native peasant cash crop production from competing with cash crops produced by settlers or foreign firms. These are concrete examples of the develop— ment of underdevelopment that we should have perceived as such even as we read our history schoolbooks. Why didn’t we? Somehow our schoolbooks always seemed to make the flow of history appear to have its own logic—as if it could not have been any other way. 1, Frances, recall, in particular, a grade—school, social studies pamphlet on the idyllic life of Pedro, a nine—year— old boy on a coffee plantation in South America. The drawings of lush vegetation and “exotic” huts made his life seem romantic indeed. Wasn’t it nat— ural and proper that South America should have plantations to supply my mother and father with coffee? Isn’t that the way it was meant to be? NOTES 1Radha Sinha, Food and Poverty (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1976), p. 26. 2John Stuart Mill, Political Economy, Book 3, Chapter 25 (emphasis added). 3Peter Feldman and David Lawrence, “Social and Economic Implications Of the Large—Scale Intro- duction of New Varieties of Foodgrains,” Africa Report, preliminary draft (Geneva: UNRISD, 1975), pp.l()7vl()8. 4Edgar Owens, The Right Side of History, unpublished manuscript, 1976. 5\X/alter Rodney, How Europe Underdeueloped Africa (London: Bogle‘L’Ouverture Publications, 1972), pp. 171—172. "Ferdinand Ossendowski, Slaves of the Sun (New York: Dutton, 1928), p. 276. 7Rodney, How Europe Uriderdeve/oped Africa, pp. 171—172. “lbidu p. 181. 9Clifford Geertz, Agricultural Inuolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1963), pp. 52753. mRodney, How Europe Urzderdroeloped Africa, p. 185. 11Ibid.,p. 184. “Ibid, p. 186. 13George L. Beckford, Persistent Poverty: Under/development in Plantation Economies qfthe Third World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 99. 14Ibid., p. 99, quoting from Erichjacoby, Agrarian Unrest in Southeast Asia (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1961), p. 66. 15Pat Flynn and Roger Burbach, North American Congress on Latin America, Berkeley, California, recent investigation. “’Feldman and Lawrence, “Social and Economic Implications," p. 103. 17Special Sahelian Office Report, Food and Agriculture Organization, March 28, 1974, pp. 88—89. 18Alan Adamson, Sugar Without Slaves.'The Political Economy cf British Guiana, 1838e1904 (New Haven and London:Yale University Press, 1972). ...
View Full Document

Page1 / 7

lappe and collins - why cant poor people feed themselves -...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online