Take it to the Bank

I have spent hours of my time in attempting to find food for the needy. Being a part of the Boy Scouts of America, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, volunteer time is something that just naturally occurred. I always saw myself as doing something for the betterment of society, giving back to people who didn't have anything themselves, or just being plain charitable.

I always had a certain amount of sympathy for the people who needed the food. I never personally knew anyone who did, but I occasionally saw someone, in my rural town of Stanwood, WA, walking in the rain and wind, dressed in what I would call rags, obviously going somewhere, and naturally I pitied them. These people were the ones I pictured on the receiving end of the free food I helped gather. I felt this way until, in a chance of fate, I ended being on the receiving end of the volunteer service.

My first visit to the food bank for myself and my family was, for me, a very embarrassing experience. I was worried that I might see someone I knew, or that, even worse, they would recognize me. However, I consider my feelings felt at the food bank as immaterial when I think of why I needed to go.

Why is it that, even though there is a very large surplus of food in the United States, there are hungry people everywhere? I suppose that when the all powerful dollar is pushed before food justice, there will always be a surplus. That's how capitalism works. A surplus is needed to make money. The answer to my question is quite simple. There is a disconnect between food and people, and this is because of money. Food is no longer seen as a means to feed people, per say, but as a means to make money. Food banks are a product of this line of thinking. I would go so far as to say that food banks exist, not necessarily to feed the hungry, but rather to convince people who have money to buy food that the problem of hunger is being solved.

Janet Poppendieck go a step further and says that "...the food banks realize they need hunger as an issue in order to raise their funds (p 133)." The food banks will not, or cannot, exist without hunger. They are just as capitalist as the rest of America. Money is needed to survive, and food banks have found a way to make money.

Now, food banks aren't all bad, they do feed hungry people; however, they treat hunger, according to Poppendieck, as a disease, and not a symptom. Hunger is treated independently from low wages, poverty, and many other things. Being poor myself, there is definitely a connection between the amount of money I have and the food I eat. There is rent, bills, school, food, clothing, etc, but I don't hear the same fervor coming to stop these equally pressing issues. These are the places I see myself and Poppendieck running together.

But I am at odds with the steps that should be taken. I do not believe that the government can do anything and create the correct system, too many puffy egos are involved. Things need to be done on a large scale, but personal basis. There must be a movement to change the present that comes from the ground up. The government can educate, but legislation would just prove meddlesome. If things are going to change they must be changed willingly. I know I am waxing utopic to an extent, and I don't know if any of the things I suggested are even possible, but I do know what I want to do for myself and for the people that I know.