• bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    historically speaking, when you consider its domestication by indigenous people in South America, its appropriation by Spanish colonizers, its resistance to looting by marauding armies compared to grain crops, and the freaking Irish potato famine, I think it becomes quite clear that the potato is a politically relevant crop and could reasonably be considered political.

    • Ferk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The existance of potatoes in western diet might be politically motivated (just like every food, not just potatoes), but that’s not the same as saying that potatoes are political.

      Also, even if the potato had never been involved in any of that and had been always peacefully and respectfully used… wouldn’t that history also be political? Why would violent conflict be more of a “political” thing, when non-violence is as much of a political movement?

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          EVERY food meets that same criteria. So of course the bar is not high under that categorization.

          The problem is that calling a physical object “political” just because it can be placed in a political framework makes no sense, because then everything is “political” at that point, thus making the term pretty meaningless.

          It would be like saying “potatos are emotional” just because it’s possible for someone somewhere to get emotional about a potato.

          What’s political are human opinions, intentions and actions. Not a chunk of metal, nor the root of a plant.

          • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Would you seriously say that food is NOT political? With famines being a major driver of social unrest and mass death? With government power being highly linked from ancient times to the distribution and taxation of grain crops? With its impacts on public health and chronic diseases? With the many land reforms throughout history? With the freaking Food and Drug Administration and the Farm Bill and the US Department of Agriculture and the presidential candidates at the Iowa State Fair eating corn dogs as rustically as they can muster? With the existence of the vegan movement? I could easily go on but I think it’s pretty clear that you at the very least picked a bad example of something that’s not political.

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol. There is no example that isn’t political by your criteria. Can you give me one?

                • Ferk@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Not in food and not anywhere. Can you give me one or can you not?

                  And you seem to assume that something is more political when it causes unrest… as if the lack of unrest was making things less political. Are you confusing “political” with “cause of human conflict”?

                  Even rocks have political repercusions, not only historically (I wonder if humans would even exist without Earth being a rocky planet), but also being necessary today for the survival of people across all social classes since we continue to rely on it for a lot of our structure, creation of tools in tribes and processes in our industries. And it’s not without conflict between classes either, with quarries being worked on by the lower classes for the benefit of the rich.

                  • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I mean at this point you’re just making my argument for me. my point in the first place was that most things are political and you’re asking me to give a counterexample. if you believe that most things aren’t political come up with the counterexample yourself.

      • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s not more of a political thing, therefore they would both be political. although I’m not convinced that a crop that’s strictly nonviolent would even exist

        • Ferk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Exactly. If you use that criteria to categorize physical things (instead of human intentions/goals), then you’ll find everything is political, and thus that classification would be totally useless.

          Even numbers and mathematics would be political by that criteria… even regions of space we haven’t visited would be. It’s trivial to find a political frame from which to see anything, all you need is to have an opinion about how it has affected / can affect humanity. So that criteria makes it a pretty useless term.

          Physical objects aren’t any more “political” than they are “emotional”. Are potatoes also emotional?

          • bobs_guns@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Potatoes are commonly described as a comfort food so I think it would be fair to describe them as emotional, although it would be a bit of an odd way to word it.

            • Ferk@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yea, also every form of food. Even mathematics can ellicit emotions. Everything can be emotional when you apply that same sort of odd logic.

              When you apply human properties to things and want to see things under humanity’s framework… then everything is human… potatoes are human too then. This is just an odd antropo-centric way to describe objects, which doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.