a960: Re: a943: Comments on Rice Scandal (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Joann Jaffe <Joann.Jaffe@uregina.ca>


Many people forget that the majority of people in Haiti are food
producers. Yes, they buy food in the market, but their well-being is
first and foremost tied to the fortunes of their own production. When
barriers to rice imports were reduced in the mid-late 1980s (and
contraband increased), not only did the price of locally-produced rice
fall, but the price of other grains fell dramatically as people
switched their consumption away from corn, millet, and sorghum to
cheaper rice. Coming on the heels of the pig eradication, this was a
real blow to rural livelihoods.

Note that peasant producers in Haiti, like peasant producers in other
parts of the world, are "satificers"--generally speaking, they are
consumption-oriented and produce to satisfy their consumption needs.
Haitian rural producers do this primarily through market relations.
This means, that as the price of goods falls, they must intensify their
market production. Intensification can come about through
simplification of farming systems in which producers concentrate
primarily on a limited range of market crops to the exclusion of
others, or by bringing more land into production. This, incidentally,
is the primary cause today for deforestation and soil erosion in Haiti.

Cheap food policies are commonly used to allow industrial
capital to pay low wages, and to quell discontent of usually urban
non-producers. Lowering the prices received by rural producers has been
a strategy used by colonialists and neo-colonials for centuries in
order to deepen rural market relations and dependency.

I have of necessity been very brief in this explanation. I have done
much research and writing on this topic, and would be happy to get some
of this work out to those interested.

By the way, in regards to an earlier thread, "Se pa fot mwen"
indicates both more and less than the previous poster indicated. Rather
than the moral lack indicated by an inability to take responsibility,
it really means "I didn't do it on purpose and therefore am not to
blame."  This speaks to the motivation behind the action, which one
could argue indicates a higher level of moral reasoning than simply
considering the action alone.

JoAnn Jaffe
joann.jaffe@uregina.ca