[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In California s centralcoast, strawberry workers are concentrated into poor neighborhoods;the poverty rate in one Watsonville neighborhood in which many straw-berry workers live is twice the national average (United Farm WorkersUnion 1996).Segregation in agrarian communities is also by occupation, with result-ant differences in resource and power allocations.Although AfricanAmericans, Latinos, and Asian Americans have provided much of the farmlabor in U.S.agriculture, they are much less likely than European Americansto be farm operators.Nonwhites comprise nearly 25 percent of the popu-lation, yet ethnic minorities operate a mere 2 percent of the farms in theUnited States (Census Bureau 1987).Even in a state as ethnically diverse asCalifornia, where 43 percent of the population is nonwhite, less than 7 per-cent of farm operators are nonwhite (Census Bureau 1987).In contrast,California s farm labor force is composed almost exclusively of ethnic minori-ties, 95 percent of whom are foreign born (Kuminoff et al.2000). Rethinking Food-System Localization 173Reducing the scale of human interactions does not necessarily achievethe social equity or empowerment espoused by alternative agrifood move-ments.Small-scale institutions are not always more equitable or desirable.A survey of California farmworkers, for instance, found that the majoritypreferred to work on large farms rather than small farms because they expe-rienced fewer abuses and received higher wages on the large farms than onthe small ones (Buck et al.1997).Another small-scale institution is the fam-ily, yet one in which terror and violence may reign.For an Americanwoman, the most dangerous place she can be is in her home, the most local of places.Rates of reporting of domestic violence in rural commu-nities are low because it is more difficult to maintain anonymity and becausethe women are economically tied to the farm.In many instances small communities are anything but liberatory forthose traditionally marginalized.In rural minority counties, there are evenfurther separations by race and ethnicity at municipal and neighborhoodlevels, which generally involves relative economic disadvantage for thesegroups (Cromartie 1999).Localism tends to be positively associated withconservative positions on social issues and negatively associated with con-cern for social justice.Tightly knit communities can be constricting forthose who do not fit community norms (Bell and Valentine 1997).Thesecommunities can place sanctions on nonconforming behavior such as mixed race or same-sex partnerships, with communities serving as loci of socialcontrol for what is perceived as deviant behavior.While there are abun-dant assertions that face-to-face relationships are purer, more authentic,and more just than relationships mediated across space and time, evidencesuggests this is often not the case.Working only at the local level is not only insufficient to rectifyinequities, localism may actually be the source of these inequities.In manycases the disenfranchised have turned to the federal government for reliefprecisely because progressive change was impossible at the local level orbecause local elites persisted in denying them basic rights.For example, inthe South it took national legislation to overcome local preferences forracial segregation. The realities of southern power dictated that organiz-ers had to do more than promote salience and efficacy at the grassroots.Change necessitated intervention from the North (Goldberg 1991).Whenstudies in the 1960s found that rural communities held deep pockets ofhunger, action to alleviate hunger was taken at the federal not locallevel.In these cases, local control resulted in the antithesis of social justice. 174 Together at the TableExisting power relations and dependencies can preclude the spontaneousgeneration of participation, which may require outside stimulus (Bryant1991).Consider the well-known Indian Chipko movement, often held upas the quintessential local, grassroots environmental movement.Chipkobecame a regional autonomy movement, but was shaped by earlierCommunist Party and Gandhian organizing and, therefore, cannot be con-sidered a purely local or indigenous movement (Watts and McCarthy 1997) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.In California s centralcoast, strawberry workers are concentrated into poor neighborhoods;the poverty rate in one Watsonville neighborhood in which many straw-berry workers live is twice the national average (United Farm WorkersUnion 1996).Segregation in agrarian communities is also by occupation, with result-ant differences in resource and power allocations.Although AfricanAmericans, Latinos, and Asian Americans have provided much of the farmlabor in U.S.agriculture, they are much less likely than European Americansto be farm operators.Nonwhites comprise nearly 25 percent of the popu-lation, yet ethnic minorities operate a mere 2 percent of the farms in theUnited States (Census Bureau 1987).Even in a state as ethnically diverse asCalifornia, where 43 percent of the population is nonwhite, less than 7 per-cent of farm operators are nonwhite (Census Bureau 1987).In contrast,California s farm labor force is composed almost exclusively of ethnic minori-ties, 95 percent of whom are foreign born (Kuminoff et al.2000). Rethinking Food-System Localization 173Reducing the scale of human interactions does not necessarily achievethe social equity or empowerment espoused by alternative agrifood move-ments.Small-scale institutions are not always more equitable or desirable.A survey of California farmworkers, for instance, found that the majoritypreferred to work on large farms rather than small farms because they expe-rienced fewer abuses and received higher wages on the large farms than onthe small ones (Buck et al.1997).Another small-scale institution is the fam-ily, yet one in which terror and violence may reign.For an Americanwoman, the most dangerous place she can be is in her home, the most local of places.Rates of reporting of domestic violence in rural commu-nities are low because it is more difficult to maintain anonymity and becausethe women are economically tied to the farm.In many instances small communities are anything but liberatory forthose traditionally marginalized.In rural minority counties, there are evenfurther separations by race and ethnicity at municipal and neighborhoodlevels, which generally involves relative economic disadvantage for thesegroups (Cromartie 1999).Localism tends to be positively associated withconservative positions on social issues and negatively associated with con-cern for social justice.Tightly knit communities can be constricting forthose who do not fit community norms (Bell and Valentine 1997).Thesecommunities can place sanctions on nonconforming behavior such as mixed race or same-sex partnerships, with communities serving as loci of socialcontrol for what is perceived as deviant behavior.While there are abun-dant assertions that face-to-face relationships are purer, more authentic,and more just than relationships mediated across space and time, evidencesuggests this is often not the case.Working only at the local level is not only insufficient to rectifyinequities, localism may actually be the source of these inequities.In manycases the disenfranchised have turned to the federal government for reliefprecisely because progressive change was impossible at the local level orbecause local elites persisted in denying them basic rights.For example, inthe South it took national legislation to overcome local preferences forracial segregation. The realities of southern power dictated that organiz-ers had to do more than promote salience and efficacy at the grassroots.Change necessitated intervention from the North (Goldberg 1991).Whenstudies in the 1960s found that rural communities held deep pockets ofhunger, action to alleviate hunger was taken at the federal not locallevel.In these cases, local control resulted in the antithesis of social justice. 174 Together at the TableExisting power relations and dependencies can preclude the spontaneousgeneration of participation, which may require outside stimulus (Bryant1991).Consider the well-known Indian Chipko movement, often held upas the quintessential local, grassroots environmental movement.Chipkobecame a regional autonomy movement, but was shaped by earlierCommunist Party and Gandhian organizing and, therefore, cannot be con-sidered a purely local or indigenous movement (Watts and McCarthy 1997) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]