Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Jacob]

Needless to say this is one of only many ways enclosure happened and it was a steady process over 500 years. Enclosure started before the Tudors came to power and reached its conclusions in the 19th century. I have heard all these very selectively chosen examples over the years but to claim it was some kind of horrific sudden event is very misleading. Often it was the peasants themselves that led the charge.

This is not an argument I'm familiar with, and I'm not sure what you're driving at with those. Sure there were economic changes that happened in ways that were less traumatic and outright murderous for the affected populations; that's great. Is the argument that since it happened in a non-brutal way in some cases, the brutal acts of clearances should be ignored?

Or is it just that some eggs where broken in the making of the omelette and since that happened a long time ago and far away, we can be pretty philosophical about the suffering?

I don't know if any fantastic "privileges" were lost, but it certainly was an act (or series of acts) of large scale brutality.

Well the alternative model was granting the peasants tenure over the land, like was done in France. And the result seems to have been just as traumatic with backwards farming techniques resulting in high food prices, economic stagnation, and starvation. Transitioning from a peasant economy was always going to be traumatic and peasant languages, like Gaelic, had a hard time of it everywhere.

Likewise huge subsidies to keep coal mines open might have kept those communities together for a bit longer but the end consequences would not have been pretty.

It sounds to me like you're saying that since it happened, it was unavoidable; and since it was unavoidable, we can dismiss the suffering of those affected as a trivial detail? Or are you driving at something else?

[Valmy]

his is not an argument I'm familiar with, and I'm not sure what you're driving at with those. Sure there were economic changes that happened in ways that were less traumatic and outright murderous for the affected populations; that's great. Is the argument that since it happened in a non-brutal way in some cases, the brutal acts of clearances should be ignored?

No I am saying the brutality is always characterized as typical of enclosure. It was the exception and not the rule. Putting it in its context and being balanced instead of demonizing a process that actually benefited most people would be refreshing in how this story is normally told. I am actually arguing the fact that in the majority of cases it was not done in a brutal way should not be ignored. 

It sounds to me like you're saying that since it happened, it was unavoidable; and since it was unavoidable, we can dismiss the suffering of those affected as a trivial detail? Or are you driving at something else?

I am simply saying the entire story should be told and it should be told in its proper context instead of characterizing it as some sort of horrible crime perpetrated by evil forces, I suspect the situation with gentrification is rather similar. I mean are there egregious cases? Sure. But that is not the entire story, it is just part of the story.

[Jacob]

An interesting perspective, and not one I've encountered before. Is this a Valmy original approach, or one based on other scholarship?

[Valmy]

An interesting perspective, and not one I've encountered before. Is this a Valmy original approach, or one based on other scholarship?

Well I never was very happy with the way this story was presented to me in College, it seemed a bit too mustache twirly for something happening all over the country. Still there was slavery so certainly people can just be that shitty

But it is based on recent scholarship. But damned if I can find my sources I am always terrible at that. I read something or hear something and remember the information but not where I heard it from. I am a junkie for anything English history these days for some reason. Books about sheep herding are endlessly fascinating.

[Malthus]

Hey, I'm not arguing really: I tend to agree that time marches on. I'm just pointing out that "gentrification" isn't confined to inner city settings.

It does make one wonder where did all these wealthy people live before "gentrification"? Or are there just far more rich people today than there used to be?

Well, in this particular case it is easy: the "gentry" come from the big, bad city (specifically, Toronto). There are indeed lots more of them than there used to be, as Toronto has grown enormously. They are streaming into the countryside looking for cottages and other recreational facilities.

Naturally, lots of locals are all in favor of this, as it pumps cash into the economy. However, the downside is that it tends to break up the communities that have existed there for some time. These create the dilemmas typical of "gentrification" - obviously it ain't all bad, but it does tend to displace people.

[viper37]

But things are much better now than they were 30 years ago which was why I was curious why their situation is deteriorating.

One thing is this new milk protein imported from the US, that does not count toward milk imports, so it drives the price of the milk down (it went down 15% last year, climbed back by 5%, it's still a tad under 10% lower than 2-3 years ago).
Add to that the inhability of most farmers to quickly react to such a "sudden" change in price structure and you get a crisis.

That makes me think that Canada has no subsidies for their farms, these farmers are just really bad at farming, or there are some kind of specific circumstances making these particular farms specifically unsuccessful. Maybe all three.

Some are pretty bad, yeah.  As strange as it sounds for people like us, you do have a significant proportion (far from a majority, but still) of farmers with barely and education.   One guy I know was basically forced to quit high school in 8th grade.  He was nearing his 20s.  He got enrolled into some specific agricultor training program for those with lots of difficulties.  They just focus on basic manual task and forget about usual professional high school requirements like very basic English, French and math.  Then they give them a diploma.   I know 2 guys exactly in this situation in the area.  Functional analphabet is even a stretch to describe them.  And then they get girlfriends even worst than them.  duh.
Sorry for the rant.

Also, there are no direct subsidies for farming.  For mik, eggs and poultry, there is a system of quotas and a minimum price for milk in grocery stores.  A dairy farmer is forced to buy a quota, in liters of milk, for what he wants to sell during a given year.  There are no more penalties for over producing, but you don't get paid.  In the past, you would often see farmers throwing their surplus production away (they opened the boil tank valve and let it flow to the nearest trenches).  The quotas garantees a certain stability for the milk (and other products) as prices are pre-determined for a longer time frame rather than fluctuating every week.

They receive subsidies for cereal production, in the form of an insurance for which they pay 25% of the cost.  It's called stabilization insurance.  If the crops are very bad in an area to due horrid weather or if the prices were to get too low, they'd get compensation.

They also have access to financing at premium rates, below usual market costs for such projects since the government will guarantee their loans to the banks.  They also receive subsidies that cover a part of the municipal taxes since they don't receive these services for their lands (police, fire, garbage, sewer, etc).  But to get all that, you need to be part of the biggest farmer's union in Quebec (the others don't count), and to do that you need to achieve a certain level of production.

There are problems with this system of course, lots of problems for everyone and I'm not sure I should go more in details in this thread...

But there is no reason they cannot sell these farms, get a huge profit, and then buy a cheap farm way out in the country away from the big cities where this is unlikely to repeat.

The problem arise when the city develops around them.  See, one farm I know of, a former client.  They are (were) located in Beauport (Quebec city).  Right in front of the psychiatric hospital Robert Giffard.
It was among the oldest farmland in Quebec, probably the oldest one.  When it was built, it was away from Quebec city.  When we went to work there, it was surrounded by restaurants and other commerce.  Ok, 400 years had passed, but you see the same happening faster&faster everywhere.

Eventually, the tax bill rose to incredible level, and after spending a lot of money to conform themselves to environmental laws since they are now near a residential area.  And then, they are forced to once conclusion: they cannot afford to pay 100k$ in municipal taxes every year and expect to survive.  So they close it down.  They sell the land to promoters that will build condo.  And they pay their debts.  And they have just enough to buy another house and another farm.  At 59 years old.  If they want to keep doing what they do, they need to buy the farm plus a new quota.  That means moving away from everything and everyone you know, starting anew and going into debt for a diminishing income. 

At this point, most will opt out of the business alltogether and try to live off their economies for the time remaining.  Especially if the physical shape is not what it's used to be.  Lots of farmers have joint&muscle problems later in their life from doing such a hard work.

If they're younger... Well, then the problem is finding another farm in another part of the province that has just the right conditions: sufficiently away from the city for at least 2-3 generations and an older owner ready to sell at a right price.  Because these farms are prime targets for financial funds, some Quebec based, some foreign, some from Banks with unclear intentions.  It's a sellers market, really.  But their biggest asset is the quota, which means you freeze your own financial assets for something unproductive when you want to buy another farm.

And of course, you have to find the farm.  As I said earlier, the quota system led to a gap in the use of technology, not just for the farm itself, but the entire industry, and that is compounded by Quebec's general hostility toward new technologies (and the language barrier does not help at all).  A prospective buyer from Quebec city may not be aware of a farm selling north of Saguenay.  Or he may have no interest in unproductive lands as the best ones become residential areas.

So, lots of problem.

[Jacob]

Well I never was very happy with the way this story was presented to me in College, it seemed a bit too mustache twirly for something happening all over the country. Still there was slavery so certainly people can just be that shitty

But it is based on recent scholarship. But damned if I can find my sources I am always terrible at that. I read something or hear something and remember the information but not where I heard it from. I am a junkie for anything English history these days for some reason. Books about sheep herding are endlessly fascinating.

Fair enough. I'll keep an eye out for anything on the subject

[Razgovory]

It's just another iteration of the "noble savage" myth that various collectivists have been perpetrating at least since Rousseau.

While you are certainly a backward, potato-worshiping savage, there is nothing noble about you.

[Malthus]

Well yeah but all that has been true for 50 years. But things are much better now than they were 30 years ago which was why I was curious why their situation is deteriorating. That makes me think that Canada has no subsidies for their farms, these farmers are just really bad at farming, or there are some kind of specific circumstances making these particular farms specifically unsuccessful. Maybe all three.

In the case of Oro-Medonte, the farms were never the most productive, because the farmland there tends to be marginal. Basically, it is too sandy. The property my father bought used to be farmland, but it was ruined during the depression, and it is easy to see why it reverted to forest - it's very sandy.

What made the farms viable was the fact they were close to a major market. With new technology for transportation, that ceased to be as big an advantage as formerly.

But there is no reason they cannot sell these farms, get a huge profit, and then buy a cheap farm way out in the country away from the big cities where this is unlikely to repeat.

I suppose they can do that. But then, they'd be moving into a different community. It may (or may not) be just as good as the community they had left, but it will not have the same associations of tradition, friendships and inter-marriage as the one they left. They would now be comparative strangers.

[11B4V]

  Oh, shit

[Admiral Yi]

 

[Liep]

Are you seriously still on about that gorilla over there? 

[Martinus]

Oh, shit

Ok, this is offensive/racist and funny at the same time.

[Martinus]

Are you seriously still on about that gorilla over there? 

In case you did not get the joke, the man pictured is George (?) Zimmerman, who shot Trevon Martin.

[Liep]

Are you seriously still on about that gorilla over there? 

In case you did not get the joke, the man pictured is George (?) Zimmerman, who shot Trevon Martin.

Oh.