After the Revolutionary War, Washington was sick of seeing bloodshed and wounded soldiers; he missed the philosophical retreat of his home in Mount Vernon. According to Wulf, “the commander-in-chief saw the future of America as a country peopled not by soldiers but by farmers - an agrarian society that would be industrious and happy” (Wulf, 16). As a soldier, Washington fulfilled his duty to his country but as this quote clearly conveys, Washington idealized an agrarian society for the future of America’s economy. Washington believed that an agricultural society was vital to a nation that sought to define a national identity and was much more than just a profitable endeavor at the time. According to Wulf, “ploughing, planting and vegetable gardening were more than profitable and enjoyable occupations: they were political acts, bringing freedom and independence” (Wulf, 10). As a new nation, the success of an agrarian society was much more than a source of income; it was a political statement towards Britain. After the Revolutionary War, Washington and the rest of America had a great deal of pride for their nation, as demonstrated by his garden in Mount Vernon. According to Wulf, “the plants were American and that was all that counted because this part of the garden celebrated America” (Wulf, 26). When constructing his garden, Washington would only plant native species because his garden celebrated America’s success in the Revolutionary War and symbolized a nation that was
Thomas Jefferson became his own master builder on this land that he inherited from his father, Peter Jefferson. When his father died he left five thousand acres and more than twenty slaves to Thomas and his younger brother Randolph. The land would include the little 867 foot wooded mountain that would one day be called "Monticello." In 1767 Jefferson did the unheard thing to do in colonial America, he decided to build his dream home on the mountaintop. There were no highways or rivers on the land he built his home and people thought he was crazy and unpractical for doing this.
“In 1785, Thomas Jefferson declared that ‘Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds’” (Waters, 2009, p. 111). By the way our society is going with the fast-food industry, this quote is losing its meaning. When Jefferson said this, families had to use fresh and local produce to prepare meals. If families did not use local produce, the food options were scarce. Today, when a family is hungry, ordering take-out is a simple solution.
It used to be that fine dining establishments featured imported ingredients on the menu. These days, many chefs in high quality restaurants take pride in featuring locally grown, seasonal items. Even some large chain grocery stores now offer meat and produce from local farms. While most Americans probably would not feel the need to be as close to their meat as Makenna Goodman describes in “Ever Wonder if You Could Kill What You Eat? We Did the Other Night”, there is growing support for Goodman’s ideas that being closer to the food results in better food quality (246). Many Americans seem to concur, as they are now willing to pay more for locally grown and organically raised food. Having seen countless local farms plowed under to become housing developments or shopping malls, and having dealt with several epidemics of tainted food, Americans are more conscious of the ‘support your local farmer’ movement. If this new ‘food fashion’ continues to grow in popularity, it will help strengthen local farms that in past years have suffered at the expense of large commercial farming enterprises. According to Michael Pollan federal policy has promoted industrial agriculture, or agribusiness, since the Nixon era in the belief that keeping food costs low by obtaining maximum production of commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice) was in the best interest of the national political agenda (186). In “Farmer in Chief”, Pollan asks President Obama to change federal policy and instead promote local farming, asserting that how Americans grow, process, and eat food impacts the health care crisis, energy independence, and climate change (187). Goodman, Pollan, and others agree that more local, small-scale, farming will be better for th...
'The colonial ornamental gardens were unlike our own in the relative poverty of plants, in
...t tastes. According to Maiser, she states, “Locally grown produce is fresher…Local food just plain tastes better… Locally grown fruits and vegetables have longer to ripen.”(Source A). The writer is saying that the food quality of locally harvested food from local farmers’ markets is more convenient in various ways. Smith agrees, “Fruits and vegetables that travel shorter distances are therefore likely to be closer to a maximum of nutrition… It’s not just vitamins and minerals, but all these phytochemicals … a food never really reaches its peak ripeness…” (Source B). The food bought from stores like, Wal-Mart and/or Food 4 Less never reach their full peak of ripeness due to the chemicals used on the produce so it can be preserved. Locally grown produce will be full of vitamins and free of phytochemicals, so it will have a better taste that benefits a humans’ health.
Former editor of Us News and World Report and recipient of Guggenheim Award,Stephen Budiansky in his article, “Math Lessons For Locavores”,published in August 19,2012 addresses the topic of locally grown food and argues it as a more sustainable choice in terms of freshness and seasons.I agree with Budiansky for growing food locally,however; with three other reasons: we can reduce food waste,(which will benefit the environment), and obesity(which will help an individual mentally and physically), and improve our economy. The purpose is to illustrate why locally grown foods would be a finer option for an American lifestyle. Budiansky adopts an informative,persuasive,and insightful tone for his audience,readers
Would you sacrifice the state of your world for the sake of seemingly better-tasting produce? The rising tide of the locavore movement, a crusade that aims to promote local produce consumption, has washed over several American towns. This concept appears to ameliorate the lives of few American farmers and yield flavorful harvests, but at what cost? Despite the fact that the locavore movement has improved the state of several rural towns, its global provisions prove to be nominal.
... ridiculous to Anatole that we have fruits and vegetables that are grown somewhere else and then driven miles and miles to the supermarket. The clash of the two cultures makes me wonder if the “American” way is better. It is pretty ridiculous that people can’t grow their own food and only rely on the labor of others.
Over time, as farming became more popular, the United States thrived on agriculture. It became an important issue especially to Thomas Jefferson. He was a key person in leading the agricultural development of the United States. Thomas Jefferson believed in agrarianism and thought highly of farmers. An agriculture leader should understand why agriculture is important and how to improve and also maintain a good status agriculturally. And Thomas Jefferson held all these qualities. He did what was best for the farmers as well as others in the United States. And by him being a great leader agriculturally, many others in the government kept his ideas in mind. That is what made this country strong, we develop from our past and in effect our country has grown stronger. For example, In 1970- a farmer could provide enough for 2 people In 1935- a farmer could provide enough for 10 people In 1992- a farmer could provide enough for 127 people In 1998- a farmer could provide enough for over 130 people This shows a growth in efficiency.