Sadly and unsurprisingly, nothing near me. On the bright side, we do have a farmer’s market so I’ll just continue to patron that and say that if you have one near you, definitely check them out!
UK here but in my experience farmers markets cost vastly more. Shame because if a farmer just asked for cash and I can fill a sack of potatoes myself for less cost than a supermarket I would go for it. I don’t need a fancy hipster shop front.
Problem with farmers market is it costs farmers to have the stall there (rent the space), to move all their produce and they even need to man it. Which is bassically what a supermarket does, but in bulk so it’s cheaper. In theory you would have to go directly to the farms for a discount.
Farm shops, so literally on the farm. Are also very expensive! The ones I see are usually targeting the middle class market so I don’t really go there. I would go to a barn if it was cheaper than a supermarket
Honestly a shame with those farmers. Unfortunately why I had to include “in theory”
Stalls cost jack around here. $30 for the main market downtown, $20 at either flea market. Manning it ain’t much when you have a family doing it for free and it’s only on Saturday.
Well, only 2 within reasonable distance. One only sells microgreen kits. The other appears to be a supplier for restaurants, etc.
I zipped them an email to ask about private sales. But, definitely nothing on their website about sales and shipping to the public.
I’ve gone to farmer’s markets and although the stuff is good, some of it is pricey. There are stuff like lettuce and stuff that are cheaper but most of stuff like berries and fruits are more expensive.
It’s more expensive indeed, but I’ve found the quality is much better.
Definitely. 100% would rather buy from a farmer’s market than a big name store. Also, why around my area, the big farmer’s markets are located in affluent areas
yeah unfortunately small or independent farmers simply can’t ever compete with factory farms.
But on the bright side, that money (usually) goes right back into your local economy, instead of lining the pockets of some rich asshole from five states away who has a chain of grocery stores.
It does, as long as those farmers are giving back and trickling it down, sort to speak. It isn’t the case for everyone, try not to buy from assholes if you can.
So no asian farms, no spanish farms, no middle eastern farms?
Why just black farms? Doesn’t this lend itself to the trope of black people being farmhands?
There ya go, you can make a site for each of those. Use promo code ImATroll for 0% off.
We’d be better off with a website that has farms owned by the workers that are also politically aligned away from hateful views.
Race based delineation is stupid.
Owning a farm is not in any way the same as being farmhands.
We must stay divided or we might notice that we’re losing the class war.
This is the thing that I literally do not understand. Self-segregation is the stupidest shit.
A coalition of independent farmers or farmers with a specific agenda is much better than dividing shit by race. Race is the least meaningful way to divide people.
My wife is black, but she’s not stereotypical American black. If she owned a farm she could be on this list… and she has zero roots in the historical american bullshit. She’s literally an immigrant who pulls six figures in the corporate world. Most of the people of her cultural background are trump supporters for some stupid fucking reason (they think trump will only deport the “other” POCs, not their own, surely THEIR brown people are better right? Morons.)
If her trump loving copatriots registered as "black’ farmers they could be included in this list… and by buying through them we’d be supporting the establishment no less than if we just went to a mega-corpo grocery store.
I’m all for supporting businesses and groups that are doing something positive for the community or at the very least are trying not to actively make things worse for people but blindly “buying black” is stupid. I’d much rather buy from a fucking worker owned co-op farm that is politically aligned as far away from hate as possible.
Black farmers in the US have a particular history, what with chattel slavery and independent black farmers in particular being targeted for hostile takeovers and anti-competitive behavior from racists running big AG conglomerates in ways that other ethnic and cultural groups in the US have not faced.
Why are Americans so obsessed with skin colour
It’s a nation founded on rascism and the back of race based slavery. That shit doesn’t disappear overnight, unfortunately.
Buying something because it goes to a certain skin colour promotes racism CMV
Don’t cut yourself on all that edge before you graduate highschool kid.
it is still much more difficult for people of color to become professionally successful than it is for white people. That’s a fact. There are still laws in place (and not nearly enough protections), which disproportionately harm POC.
Do they not deserve to be just as successful? To follow their dreams? To be able to support themselves and their families?
Knowing this, why wouldn’t you seek out black-owned business to help counter systemic racism? Those in power in the US, at least, aren’t going to do it. This is by their design.
I care about the well-being of everyone (well, minus the 1% and Nazis), but those who continue to be harmed by a system—that I directly benefit from as a white person—simply require more attention if we’re ever going to have an equitable society.
The most impactful racism, that is also the hardest to fix, is systemic racism. I think the idea behind buying from black owned businesses is the individuals attempt to offset the systemic racism that they, individually, can do very little about.
Which is a downstream effect of the racism the nation was founded on? Crazy right?
Yeah that’s not how it works.
CMV
Nah I’m good.
Thank you! I did not know that. Last news that I heard about black farmers was about then getting screwed by massive ag conglomerates.
C.S.A
This is great. Is there something similar for finding local farms regardless of race?
You could try researching CSAs in your area. There are a few near me that sell farm shares with weekly pickup of seasonal veggies during harvest season. I’m in northern California, and our rate is under $20 per week after we split it with another couple. We usually receive more veggies than we would buy during a weekly grocery store trip, plus our farm let’s everyone pick fresh bouquets each pickup as a nice bonus.
CSA huh
Yup, stands for community supported agriculture. They’re often called co-ops or farm shares, but I think CSA is the industry term that you’ll have most luck with when searching around online.
I’d love to learn more about the ones in NorCal. I’m in the peninsula.
Farm co-ops I think focus on local farms.
Depending on your location, try heading to your local “ethnic” neighborhood produce shops and price check those.
“Can” cost less is doing a lot of work there. I would guess it would mildly annoy people in power, but TBH this isn’t a way to save money. If it really was, it would be common practice already.
There are lots of people who frequent local / smaller farms for things like access to organic foods / rarer crops / community support, but I’ve never known it to be cheaper than the industrial produce one can get at your nearest supermarket. Supermarkets clobbered local guys for a reason and pricing was a huge part of that.
I’d pay more just to cut out corps.
My buddy’s sister is a cheese monger. 10/10
Can’t speak to the cost, just found my local place and their FB link is offline.
a way to save money. If it really was, it would be common practice already.
I cannot overstate how dumb Americans are about shopping. The local Publix (expensive) just put the Winn Dixie (medium prices) out of business, because the Publix is newer and prettier.
Meanwhile, there are 8 other groceries that are cheaper than either. Even the Aldi isn’t busy.
Been in a few big box stores lately, prices stunned me. “People pay for this shit?!” Dude on here posted his fish tank purchase. Spent loads buying: little rocks, sticks, big rocks. I just decorated a terrarium for nearly free.
I buy almost nothing new, hell, I find a lot of my stuff. We had to get a new washer and fridge last year, paid $400 for both off FB Marketplace, nicest I’ve ever had in life, minimum $2,200 at the hardware store. Not going to listen to Americans whine about high prices when they’re complicit.
Apologies, you triggered my Rant Card.
American here. I love finding a good deal. My ex-wife, however, was put-off about buying used, she was more worried about how others saw her than actually saving money.
As a fellow American, I can simplify this (Americanize it) even further.
I cannot overstate how dumb Americans are
about shopping.Apologies, I’m just pissed off in general about my country, as I’m sure you are too.
My guess is it costs a lot more to ship small parcels of food rather than to transport food in bulk to one big store where everyone shops for it.
I would guess it would mildly annoy people in power, but TBH this isn’t a way to save money. If it really was, it would be common practice already.
Bidets are a cheaper, well known, better way to clean your asshole after taking a shit, yet the common practice of Americans is still to choose to smear their own shit around their asshole with dry disposable paper cloths.
The flaw in your argument is that you think people, Americans at that, wouldn’t ignorantly continue to pay more for the convenience of not having to think where to buy their produce, because they can get it from the local Walmart 15 minutes away, instead of saving $20+ and driving 2 more minutes.
Americans are notoriously lazy and stupid, as evidenced this past November.
The crab speaks a deep truth.
Bidets aren’t common in a whole lot of countries. Heck there are probably more countries where a bidet is uncommon than common.
Holy shit…your thoughts on bidets are spot on…I just got one and hate not having it all the time due to travel.
-am American but want nothing to do with this hateful bullshit going on currently
I got one cause of how my friend put it to me when she told me to get one. She asked me “if you get shit on your hand, are you just gonna wipe it off with a paper towel and go about your day, or are you gonna wash your hands? Now when you take a crap, why are you just smearing it around instead of washing it?” And it stuck with me and I’ve bought bidets from then on out. A 12 pack of TP lasts me a year, and I only use it to dry my ass. It’s the best thing in the world.
I laughed at friends and family during covid, cause I had a nice clean ass, and everyone else was fighting for toilet paper.
To everybody saying “reverse racism” or whatever your wording is to imply that buying specifically from black people is problematic, why? Do you think that you would have a hard time finding a white run CSA to buy? This is just a resource for people interested in supporting the black community and frankly I see any form of opposition to it as pretty blatant racism itself. I’ll return from a Google search with what I find for other race specified CSA indexes in a bit.
Some sort of brigading going on here, lots of comments with almost identical wording.
buying specifically from black people is problematic, why?
The problem isn’t that buying from black people is a problem, the problem is that it’s trying to be a selling argument, and that’s just stupid. Are the vegetables of a black farmer better than of a white farmer? Do queer farmers make better cheese than straight farmers? I somehow doubt it. In the end, it’s a matter of skill and you can have that regardless of your sexuality or skin color.
I’m seriously wondering how you ever expect something like “inclusion” to happen when you’re the ones that keep treating the groups you’re trying to include differently.
It’s about supporting marginalized people if one chooses to. If one chooses not to, they can just move one without comment. I’m just confused because it seems so simple and the only answer to me is deep seated, potentially non intentional racism.
The problem is that it’s a fundamentally good idea to support your local farmers and businesses, but you’re artificially injecting the race card yet again instead of just ignoring the skin color for once. It’s someone who sells you carrots and potatoes, why care about the race? Why support especially a black farmer? There’s no reason for it tbh - support your local business.
the only answer to me is deep seated, potentially non intentional racism.
Must be tough to try your hardest to see racism everywhere you go.
Not even an attempt to self reflect.
Nothing to self-reflect on since you and your american mindset are hellbent on seeing a race issue here. No reason to try and talk you out of it.
To flip this argument… Are the vegetables from a black farmer worse than a white farmer? Do queer farmers make worse cheese than a straight farmer? I somehow doubt it. Therefore, if output is equal, maybe it’s time to spread the love to these black and queer farmers.
You say, “in the end, it’s a matter of skill and you can have that regardless of your sexuality or skin color”… and that sounds great, on it’s face, but using that as your argument now, when, statistically, it’s shown over and over again that skill is rarely the factor that matters, is disingenuous. When we, as a society, can get to a point where we can regularly show that, statistically, race and sexuality (or any other reason humanity chooses to use to make “others” out of our fellows) truly do not effect ones prosperity, then, and only then, would your statement hold any meaning.
if output is equal, maybe it’s time to spread the love to these black and queer farmers
Okay but why? What’s the point exactly? Why discriminate against white farmers purely based on the color of their skin? Especially in the farming industry, both are doing an insanely tough job and they need people to buy their products. I think it’s wrong to not buy from a local farmer because he’s white and instead go to a black farmer that’s 30 minutes away, for example.
If I’m living in a village and we have a white farmer, I buy there. If it’s a black farmer, I buy there. And hell, I might buy from both if they have different products. Win-Win Situation.
This focus on skin color in literally every aspect of life is just getting really annoying.
You don’t live in a village. You live in a nation with easy access to products and produce from boarder to boarder (until someone decides to mess that up). You’re “local” farmer is easily both that white and that black farmer.
And if you’re tired of the focus of things being on skin color or sexual orientation, even more of a reason to level out those statistics because, while those statistics continue to show a disparity of opportunity between White and POC/Queer individuals, you’re damn right the focus should and will remain with the latter.
You don’t live in a village.
The 350 people in the austrian village I live in 80% of the time would disagree.
You’re “local” farmer is easily both that white and that black farmer
No. It’s a white farmer. I meet him like 5 times a week.
you’re damn right the focus should and will remain with the latter.
Sad tbh, but you do you. I will continue to support my local community, because strong communities strive together, regardless of arbitrary properties that they can’t influence.
How is this not racist? If there were a service where you could choose to buy directly from white farmers peoples would lose their minds
This is a remedial question, but that doesn’t make it a bad question. It is a hard problem to solve, and calling an advantage based on race somehow not racist does sound paradoxical at first glance. It’s important to be able to entertain the explanation without outright assuming you’re being attacked by a bunch of obtuse racists.
Hopefully we agree that:
- black americans are at a statistically significant socioeconomic disadvantage compared to white americans, both historically and to this day, and
- this is a direct result of a history of systematic disadvantages specifically targeting them based on their race
Let’s pretend the second bullet point has been solved, that systemic racism is over and done, and we’ve established a perfectly equal union. Even if that’s the case, we are left with the first bullet point as an ongoing problem. The challenge is now, how do you undo the very apparent damage that our history of racism caused, without specifically giving advantages to that group based on their race? And the short answer to a very complex question is: you can’t.
So the US government instituted “Affirmative Action” the goal of which was to deliberately give a targeted advantage to people who have had a history of targeted disadvantages in this country. This catches you up to roughly the 1960s.
But in the last 40 years or so, we continue to see lower class areas of the US disproportionately filled with black americans, and we also see widening wealth inequality affecting virtually everyone. So naturally we also see an increase of non-black people asking the same question as you: “I’m having a hard time too, why are they getting an advantage based on their race? That’s racism!”
The solution was to tax the rich, reduce wealth inequality, and continue to normalize disproportionate demographics. Instead, the wealthy used populism to hijack the republican party, and convince white americans that the minorities recieving these benefits were their enemy. And after 40ish years of pushing this narrative, they succeeded.
With the republican takeover of the federal govt, we can be virtually assured that any ongoing attempts to normalize these unfair demographics will be abandoned, at least at the federal level.
But it’s still a problem, just now one for the people and the states to solve. If you want to support black-owned farmers in an attempt to help pull historically disadvantaged groups out of poverty, you can. If not, that’s fine, just at least please vote for legislation that intends to reduce wealth inequality. (Note that history has exactly two ways of reducing wealth inequality: high taxes on the rich, or war. The question isn’t whether wealth will get redistributed, it’s how).
Tl; dr Yeah, it’s an advantage based on race to solve a problem caused by a history of disadvantages based on race.
Well why do you think it is? Genuinely curious
Because racism is the discrimination of someone based on their ethnicity. If you are choosing one person over another due solely to their ethnicity, isn’t that discrimination? Shouldn’t people be judged not by the color of their skin? Explicitly advertising that you are selective solely based on race is racism.
I have seen this discussion happen over and over again and a big part of the misunderstanding is some people in the US have the definition of racism also involving power and some don’t. If your definition is the former, it’s what allows people to say “Fuck white people” isn’t racist with a straight face. Before you ask someone if something is racist, ask them what they think racism is. It will save a lot of time and aggravation for everyone.
It doesn’t matter what their definition of racism is. “Fuck white people” is racist.
To be clear, I’m 100% with you, just pointing out some troubles I had when discussing racism in the past and I found out we weren’t all on the same page.
Some white people have no power and some black people have loads of it. Can we just stop this categorization of people by race for if they can or can’t do something?
deleted by creator
Your comment made me think of this:
Because, on average, black people are more economically disadvantaged than white people.
Choosing to explicitly buy from black farmers will, on average, tend to support those with the least financial means out of the general population of farmers, whereas choosing to explicitly buy from white farmers will, on average, tend to support those who are already more financially advantaged.
One side is directly choosing to help those most likely to be economically disadvantaged, the other would be explicitly ignoring those with the least means in order to help those who already have the most, thus the situations are not quite comparable.
I personally would prefer an index that directly assessed farmers based on overall wealth to determine who you should buy from, but because that’s extraordinarily difficult to constantly update & maintain, verify, etc, it can just be easier to divide among racial lines since that still tends to produce a grouping that is relatively similar.
deleted by creator
Should we just stop using statistics then? Numbers don’t matter if they are about people? (I genuinely want an answer here. Should we?)
Statistically, one societal class of people needs more support than the other to have the exact same quality of life, generational wealth, and opportunities. Thus, when deciding who to buy, in this case, produce from, it simply makes sense to purchase from the group most disadvantaged, until their disadvantage is no bigger than the other group, and we can then switch from buying from “small black farmers directly” to “all small farmers directly,” because all of them would then need a near identical level of support, financially speaking, to get the same outcomes.
deleted by creator
Group A is historically not discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $100,000.
Group B is historically discriminated against, and now on average, has a net worth of $80,000.
In both groups, some will own more or less than the average, but the largest number of poorer individuals reside in Group B, because the average is lower.
On a per person basis, everyone has $20,000 to spend. Should they give it:
- Exclusively to Group A? (and “discriminate” against Group B, but raise their average net worth to $120,000)
- Exclusively to Group B? (and “discriminate” against Group A, but raise their average net worth to $100,000)
- Split evenly between the two? (bringing Group A’s average to $110,000, and Group B’s average to $90,000)
Which option is most likely to uplift the most poor people to a less poor status?
This is why your argument of “discrimination” doesn’t hold up. The choice to make a purchase from Group A while ignoring Group B only entrenches existing wealth disparities. The choice to make a purchase from both evenly keeps the wealth disparity where it is. The choice to buy exclusively from Group B eliminates the disparity.
This decision is not being made because of race on its own, it is being made because of the common socioeconomic context within which people of color often reside. If white people were the ones who had a history of economic discrimination, even if all other actions regarding past and current racism remained equal, then economically supporting the white farmers specifically would make the most sense, because they would be most economically disadvantaged.
You cannot have a meritocracy when people start on uneven ground, and there is a very demonstrable difference in existing generational wealth between the races, as a direct consequence of past injustices. The way we fix that as individuals, and as a society, is by doing what we can to elevate groups experiencing a disparity until they no longer do.
deleted by creator
If the concern is economic disadvantages, shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color? Maybe selling products from poor and independent farmers. A portion of every race is economically disadvantaged.
Edit: I really appreciate your response. I think you described the issue really well.
shouldn’t the selectivity be based on income and net worth instead of skin color?
We should already be taxing proportional to income, and in the 60s when Affirmative Action was implemented, we were.
But the problem isn’t just that there is a lower class at all, the problem is that the lower class is disproportionately filled with black people and minorities as a direct result of racism.
If you think of it like a footrace, we ran the first half of the race giving black people a straight up disadvantage for no other reason than the color of their skin. Now most of the people in the back of the pack are black. We should already be helping all people in back to catch up to the rest of the pack, but this still means black people are disproportionately in the back as a direct result of that initial disadvantage. We could ignore it, and say that after another 300-400 years of equality, maybe things will even out on their own, but in the meantime you have a bunch of people who are living in poverty and dying, and we can scientifically say for an absolute fact that it’s a direct result of historical disadvantages targeting their ancestors based on race.
It’s inhumane to look those people in the eye and say, “tough luck, we’d help, but we decided we don’t do racism anymore.”
So by buying milk from black farmers, you will help:
- many poor black people
- some rich black people
Whereas by buying milk from poor farmers, you will help:
- many poor black people
- some poor white people
How exactly is the former better than the latter?
Both are good. Each behaviour is a response to a different problem. Refer again to my footrace analogy.
Lol. Lmao.
How is this meme relevant here? Who are the groups of people supposed to represent?
Black farmers weren’t welcome in white corporations and co-ops. So they made their own. And now white people are mad.
There is a service to buy directly from white farmers. There’s a bunch of them, including just going to the grocery store.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Region 5; Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin. Why are Ohio and Wisconsin grouped with the same link?
I imagine for the same reason Iowa and Nebraska are on the same page. https://blackfarmersindex.com/reg-7-iowa-and-nebraska
Wisconsin and Nebraska have such a small list that they’d be a waste of a page, I guess.
I kind of figured that was the reason, but seems like such a weak reason.
I don’t think this reads as what it was probably intended initially…
In Taiwan, we had “day markets” where local farmers and fishers sell produce directly to you from the previous day’s harvest. Every city has at least a few dozen day markets as well. It really serves the community and not big corps.
Some veggies still have live bugs(ladybugs) on it. That’s how fresh it is.
It also cost 1/4 the cost in a corporate grocery store.
We (the US) have farmers markets in a lot of places. They can have very specific times that I always forget about. Around here in the northern climate, the farmer markets stop during the winter or move indoors and shift to selling more jarred and canned goods. My neighborhood has a coop, but it’s more expensive than the grocery store and with a worse selection. We have options here, but they require more thoughtfulness.
That was a culture shock for me when I moved to the US. I knew that back in the day, in rural areas of my country, the markets only opened once a week. I was shocked to find that happen in urban/suburban areas in the US. Back home I could just go to the closest market any day. Morning news would have a report comparing prices in different markets across the city, so you could pick the one that has the best price for what you need that day.
