Response to question A

The potato has had a remarkable affect on the Irish and the British. The Irish accepted the potato almost immediately. The British were not as eager to accept the potato. The Irish liked how the potato did not need to be tended to as often. They also appreciated the nutritional value of the plant. Michael Pollen states, “The Irish discovered that a few acres of marginal land could produce enough potatoes to feed a large family and its livestock. The Irish also found they could grow these potatoes with a bare minimum of labor and tool, in something called a ‘lazy bed,’” (Pollen, 200). This made the Irish happy and they did not discriminate the potato. Instead they embraced it, and mixed it with milk. They found the positives in eating potatoes, such as nutrition. Pollen then states, “In addition to energy in the form of carbohydrates, potatoes supplies considerable amounts of protein and vitamins B and C (the spud would eventually put an end to scurvy in Europe); all that was missing was vitamin A, and that a bit of milk could make up,” (Pollen, 200). This shows that the Irish were willing to use the potato; in fact it helped the poor find a balanced meal, and stopped some starvation. This increase in the use of potatoes, however, caused much labor, but reduced the economic value.
The British looked at the Irish and thought they were lowering themselves by accepting the potato. They found no value in the potato at first because it was not mentioned in the Bible, and they had bread to make up for the potato’s value. When they came to terms with the potato, however, they ended up helping famine as well. They tried to advertise the potato, in attempts to spread the use of it. A simple food, such as the potato, caused much controversy in England during the 16th century.

Are farms part of nature? Are they more or less "natural" than say a garden?

I think that farms and gardens are equally natural. The main difference between a farm and a garden is that a farm's purpose is to produce food, while gardens are created more for self satisfaction and recreational purposes. They both are impacted greatly by humans. We choose what to grow and do whatever we can to make sure it stays alive by spraying pesticides and planting specific rows of seeds. Even though we do a lot to alter the natural resources we use in a farm or a garden, it is still partly considered natural. Gardens and farms thrive best out in nature and need sunlight and water to grow succesfully. In the book, Pollan states, "Planting these in intelligible rows not only flatters our sense of order; it makes good sense too: weeding and harvesting become that much simpler. And though nature herself never plants in rows-or parterres or allees-she doesn't necessarily berudge us when we do"(Pollan 185). When we garden or farm, we might do things that are not natural, but at the same time, mother nature has not provided us a big enough consequence to stop doing either. People are able to eat all the the food we eat today because of the chemicals that they use on farms to make fruits and vegetables edible. It is too bad that we have to use chemicals and have to have complete control over our farms and gardens for them to work, but it is something needed to be done.

Blog by aaron kleefield

Are farms part of nature? Are they more or less "natural" than say a garden?

I believe as we further our study of our relationship to nature it is clear that we play a large role in developing nature and nature has a strong impact on us as well. I believe farms are in a sense apart of nature being that they are made up of plants, and produce substance for us to consume. I feel that they are more a product of our effort to maintain and preserve nature. It is the "theme of uncertainty that unifies most of the questions now being raised about agriculture biotechnology by environmentalists and scientists. By planting millions of acres of genetically altered plants, we're introducing something novel into the environment and the food chain...(Pollan 210)" This quote anwers the question in that we are constantly evolutionizing technology and making nature more apart of our lives and also not letting nature take its course more naturally.

Red Barns and Green Fields

Question C) Are farms a part of nature?  Are they more or less "nature" then say a garden?  This question is hard to answer because on one hand you have the visual of a North American farm with it's rows of plants that are plowed and hoed in a way that we control it.  There is no variety in the plants, monoculture to the extreme.  Pollan writes, "Agriculture is, by its very nature, brutally reductive, simplifying nature's incomprehensible complexity to something humanly manageable; it begin, after all, with the simple act of banishing all but a tiny handful of chosen species"(Pollan 185).  The garden and the farm are highly interchangeable and one could say that a garden is just an earlier form of a small scale farm with its rows of just a few plants, but the major difference is the variety in plants seen in a garden.  A garden is usually filled with variety necessary to keep the garden up to par with its natural predators.  Pollan goes and visits some Potato farms in Idaho that use the genetically modified potato plant and see that the soil has this layer of pesticides and it is all unusually lush but has no other life in the ground other than the potato plant.  Pollan then goes and visits an organic potato farmer that don't use  genetically altered potato's but instead uses rotational techniques and diversity in the land to keep natural predators at bay and to keep the land fresh and healthy.    

So an Irishman and an Englishman walked into a restaurant... and they began arguing over a potato....

When describing the impact of the potato in Europe, Pollan emphasizes the conflict it created between the Irish and the English when the potato was introduced to both of them. The potato was a “grey” factor for both-A good thing- a sort of salvation for the hungry and poor, while it created an impulsive and tragic frenzy The English, who saw themselves as a “civilized’ group, the ones in controlled, the ones who were right. They saw and managed their food the same way: ordered, controlled, “industrial” in a way. They saw themselves and their way they controlled their food as safe from nature unpredictability; to the point of being almost self-reliant. They were used to be the ones in control, to be in order. . For the Irish, who struggled with lack of food and lack of land and resources, the potato gave them “control over their lives”- while making them dependent on nature.
The issue with the potato became struggle that also dealt with the stability of an economy. It was more of an issue of control and order than of food choices. Bread was the food that, up till the potato showed up, kept the workers working for it, “the population in check” to keep it accessible to everyone. The potato changed that for the Irish, because it was easy and non-expensive to grow and a two step away, either boiled or baked, to eat. The English relied on the plants or food that demanded work and almost a sort of mechanic production like the wheat- the planting, cutting, turning into flour and then used to make bread; and that it brought profit. The potato was “a you grow it, and you eat it” food at the time, and the English couldn’t make a profit out of it. So the potato became a threat to the English hold on the Irish, as Pollan describes the negative English reception to the potato as a “Evil” or “damned root” the food that drove people “down and away from civilization”.
Both the English and their Irish “root” for their choice food: the English with the bread (the wheat), The Irish with the potato. They also became the two extremes on the scale- the English too tight, too conservative and efficient with the bread and its preparation process; the Irish with the lack of resources, the neediness, the conformity, the “seize the moment” opportunity that the potato provided, because they were that hungry and that desperate to some measure of stability and reliance independent of the English; but they embraced the potato too much without thinking ahead, without making second plans that would allowed them to keep on relying on the potato.
So in a way the potato was a catalyst for the two groups to change their ways: For the english to be more flexible and accept an opportunity that could benefits them and those they were “in charge” off; and for the Irish to develop a method to be able to keep on taking advantage of a food that became in europe, distinctly their.

Presenting the Potato: Accept or Reject?

I think the potato depicts the attitude and status of Britain and Ireland in the 16th century. Britain rejected the potato like most of Europe because as Pollan describes on page 199, “Europeans hadn’t eaten tubers before; the potato was a member of the nightshade family (along with the equally disreputable tomato); potatoes were thought to cause leprosy and immortality; potatoes were mentioned nowhere in the Bible; potatoes came from America where they were a staple for an uncivilized and conquered race.” I can just imagine British royalty scrunching their noses and looking away from this dirty brown vegetable with disgust and disapproval. On the contrary, Ireland was delighted at this glorious vegetable that was cheap and plentiful. The potato was to be their outlet from poverty and famine, thus they welcomed it with high hopes and high spirits. The attitude of the British during the 16th century was therefore more regal and financially sound. Especially in the beginning when the future was looking very good for most of Europe, they could afford better things and did not need to waste time with the lowly potato. In addition, food is very much a symbol of status and because the potato was associated with unfavorable things it would do no good for the British status to include it in their diet; in a culture rich with delicacies there was no room for that vegetable. But the Irish land loved the potato and so did its people. Their attitude was not picky, like the British, because they were in no financial position to be so and thus embraced the potato with open arms. In addition their status was not level with the British either because Ireland was not rich but poor. So therefore by accepting the potato, the Irish demonstrate their economic status by exhibiting their desperation for food; because who would take in something most of Europe just rejected?

Blog Assignment for Monday, September 29

Respond to one of the following set of questions (e.g. answer either A, B, or C):

A. What does the potato "say" about the British and Irish in the 16th century? Or what do we learn about a culture from its food choices?

B. In what ways is genetic engineering a good thing?

C. Are farms part of nature? Are they more or less "natural" than say a garden?