Lina Joana

Pearl Sutton wrote:

Dan Boone wrote:

Pearl Sutton wrote:I'm so gonna try that recipe. I'll do it with zucchini, because I'm weird about recipes, and zucchini is easy to find here. I'd think any pale squash would work.  The Mexican places have that type around for other recipes, I have zucchini around.

I think you're right.  However if you're trying to fool LA foodies, you might need something with the right amount of color in the skin?  I imagine this would look pretty weird if you made it with yellow crookneck squashes, but I don't imagine the taste/texture would be a lot different.

I cook for myself, for flavor, not for LA foodies. I like the idea of having guac type sauces available when I don't have avocados. I suspect if the places trying to fake it had only yellow squash, they'd add a bit of dye. if they are putting forth enough effort to boil squash etc, I don't think dye would be a dealbreaker for them.

I have made it with yellow squash. It still comes out green thanks to the tomatillos and cilantro. Maybe not quite as bright a green, but it doesn’t look weird.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
Both gifting and charity can come from a place of love and desire to help another or just express love or gratitude towards an individual or group.  One key difference to me is that gifting has no major obligations attached.  Perhaps a mild amount, but nothing major.  With charity it is often pointed towards something.  Like your parents house burning down.  If they accepted money that was expected to go toward a house and they went and gabled it away playing slot machines it would be a tough situation.  But if it was a gift of the same amount they could go play slot machines and there would likely be no hard feelings.

Personally I have tried to tether some mild obligations to gifts and it's backfired quickly.  I've been loosening those ideas and it's going better.  It's  a fine balance.  With the animals I gift I want people to also gift those out as well.  They don't have to, but I'd like them to.  But I'm having a difficult time expressing that without per-emptive resentment and a feeling of obligation with a million hypotheticals to justify not committing to anything.  We are a funny organism.  If I call this same thing charity, them people are too proud to accept it.  I don't know the right words.

Have you tried “if you have a chance, pay it forward”? That seems like a vague and mild enough phrase that nobody could take offense.

So you don’t think that the gift’s value and the prior relationship has more to do with the obligations incurred than the gift/charity distinction? At the most extreme, if I give a coat to a panhandler this winter, I won’t be following up to see if they wear it or trade it for booze. That isn’t my business, they owe me nothing. On the other hand, if I gift my (hypothetical) nephew with his first year of college tuition and he withdraws from school and uses the reimbursement for a week long bender - yeah, there would be some awkwardness. Yet I would place the first example solidly in the category of charity, and the second as a gift.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
But seriously I feel like we are going all over the place and although I am enjoying it and you are fun to talk with I am likely done.  You all are great and enjoy carrying on without me on this thread.  These topics can and do fill volumes.  Seems every paragraph and many sentences here are completely loaded with potential rabbit holes.  Hope it is beneficial to some people reading through here.  Love you all.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion! I agree we were getting off topic. I would summarize my position by saying that our system, imperfect as it is, came about in response to levels of misery we just don’t see in the USA. Food insecurity is bad, but watching your small child starve to death is a lot worse. The churches and charities of times past did not solve the problem.
But I too am willing to leave the side conversation. It was fun!

One interesting and on topic question your post raised is the difference between charity and gifting. They often get conflated, but I believe there are important differences.

My understanding of a gift is that it is an expression of affection for me. It doesn’t have to be something I need, or anything big, it just says that the giver is thinking of me and is there for me. This makes me feel loved and respected and strengthens the social fabric. While a gift may not be reciprocated right away, there is the assumption that it could be - that it is a two way street.

Charity is different. The giver may not know the recipient at all. The imbalance between the giver and recipient, especially when we are talking about charity to people with chronic needs (ie, stuck in a poor situation rather than a temporary disaster). Essentially, charity patches holes in our society, which doesn’t necessarily make it stronger.  There is often a stigma associated with receiving charity, which leaves the recipient feeling bad about themselves.

My parents’ house recently burned down. The generosity if the community has been immense, and has engendered complicated feelings in my parents. On the one hand, it has made them feel less alone, and very grateful to their community, which has been very good. On the other hand, the fact that they need help has left them feeling vulnerable, and getting money and things from people they don’t know well has left them feeling like the recipients of charity. It has been an interesting study on the line between gifts and charity.

It is funny, this thread restarted just as I was listening to Paul’s recent podcasts about permaculture thorns and community. It all comes back to how to create a system in which people are lovely, kind, and generous without using coercive measures. Intentional communities, with or without a gift economy component, usually fail because it only takes a few unlovely people to bring it all down. Paul’s experiments seem to get around this by having a defacto government- like an hoa: you don’t have to live here, but if you do, you follow my definition of kind and lovely. Societies that run on gifts would, I expect, have both cultural homogeneity and strong societal norms regarding how much one person should accumulate.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
I find it easy to imagine a modern lifestyle without government as we see it today and with sound money with a completely free market and even competition in money.  But that doesn't mean it will happen.  A sound monetary system would not be offensive to me really, I'd be more apt to engage and be involved and have a bank account and other such things.  We do not have a free market capitalistic society anywhere really.  Early on there were many examples but it's all been corrupted.

Whenever I hear about “competitive currency” I think of the song Sixteen Tons, and the coal mining company store system it is describing. There wasn’t much government outside the mine owners in those towns. But the owners had enough wealth that they could write the rules and force workers to accept company issued currency, despite the theoretical ability of workers to leave.
The idea that in a free market society, we could rely on people who amass wealth to give it away to jumpstart a gift economy instead of using it to their advantage is a lovely one. I just haven’t seen many examples.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean in how we could work on getting from here (an extremely coercive top down authoritarian government) to there (a voluntary society with a free market and sound currency).  One thing would be to make whatever is palatable to the people of whatever government that rules over them a voluntary choice.  I think something like the food agencies, the USDA in the USA a voluntary program could work out quite well.  Where people can voluntarily pay for the stamp of approval "USDA grade-A."  Raw milk is another fun example of this game.  The milking industry wanted to crush the small farms so they lobbied to get pasturized milk a legal thing.  Many small milk operations wanted to be able to sell their raw milk, they didn't care if big dairy pasteurized just leave it legal for them to sell raw.  The big guys won.  It didn't need to be that way, just make it optional.  Let the USDA grade-A dead and crappy milk be an option, and let the small farm raw milk be an option.  Or something that is already functioning is certified organic, that's an optional program and it's not that amazing but at least people don't have to do that to sell quality produce.  So if people want these services and certificates just, pay for it as a business and in turn the consumers.  If they don't want it then let the people have that choice in a free market.  Alternative certificates can come about (and some do) and the free market can balance things out.  The FDA and EPA (in most things) could be turned into the same sort of thing.

One of the best summaries of the complexities involved in raw milk is here: https://lizreitzig.substack.com/p/fascinating-story-of-raw-milk-in
While arguing for raw milk, she doesn’t ignore the history of “swill milk”, its role in killing children in the cities, and the reasons the government stepped in to regulate what previously had no regulation. If you want literal crappy milk, a poorly run raw milk dairy is the place to get it…

I am a huge fan a raw milk, to the point that I bought goats and bred them to start milking. I learned how hard it is, even at the smallest scale, to keep crap out of the milk. At this point, if I were visiting a dairy with an eye to buying milk, I think I would know what to look for. I would not have before keeping goats myself. As for the FDA and EPA - again, knowing what events led to their formation is important. It only takes a few idiots to ruin it for everyone…