Never Known Hunger: The benefits of having been poor (and are no longer)

     Do you have children who are picky with foods? They don’t eat one of the food groups or the portion isn’t big enough or they would have preferred to have had two desserts and no vegetables? It is beyond their ken to truly visualize not having food and being very glad to have any.

     Although this newsletter is titled to be about food, it is really about the realities of knowing what it is like to be without via experience and the blessings that exist when you can experience having it. It can apply to food, shelter, transportation, good water (I have this tendency to often say, after a long drink of water, “I love water”), clean air, safety, love, or whatever quality you can think of that is not inherent (though perhaps it should be).

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. All posts are free but paid subscribers help the posts to be regular. Thank you.

Growing up without

     Once upon a time (in a galaxy very close but seeming far away), my birth family went through many periods of financial struggle. I have never starved, wondering whether I would last to the next day, because my parents always somehow made it not be the case. Nor have I had to sleep in a car or a back alley. But I sometimes slept on the floor and then, when a paycheck came in, on a mattress on the floor.

     I most remember the periods of stretching food as far as we could (maybe that is why having good food is so precious to me nowadays). A few times we were on food stamps and I remember the three pound blocks of Velveeta (or some other processed cheese) and the two pound tubs of margarine. One of my uncles was stationed in Alaska and, for a couple of years, we received a case of canned salmon for Christmas. There were salmon burgers twice a week for the next two months.

     One of the dishes that lingered the most for me was “ham and beans”. This meant soup made with a ham hock and lima (or butter) beans. We had that five dinners a week for what seemed like months (though I am certain it wasn’t for that long). Although I can eat butter beans now (60 years later), it is always with memories rising to the surface.

     When buying clothes, they were purchased from the bargain racks of a local thrift store. I remember the delight I felt when I got a pair of bell bottom jeans three or four years after they were fashionable. They didn’t last long as the fabric was pretty thin but the rhinestone designs on them made me smile. Thank goodness, no one ever razzed me about them though, as I said, they were badly out of fashion and I never encountered anyone else with a pair while walking through the school aisles.

     I had relatives who had even less than I did so I sometimes felt “rich”. Feelings of richness or poorness is always a matter of comparison. I had a few friends whose families were “professional” (a banker’s son and a dentist’s son) and I slept over in the dentist’s son’s home a time or two. It was the first time I had ever even heard of an electric toothbrush.

Refugees and Immigrants

     In the case of a refugee, the movement from their country is not voluntary. They either no longer have a home or their home area is not safe for them (politically or physically). Immigrants have more control over their movement. They want to move and they have a chance to prepare for the move.

     In both cases, they have inherent motivation to do better in the new country than they were doing in their previous country. For a refugee, it may just be the chance to continue living. If jobs are available, they are usually willing to do any job that will allow them to survive. Often, these jobs are not in accordance with their prior positions or training. It is only when jobs are NOT available, that problems surface. Immigrants who have options have a lower crime rate than that those that already have citizenship including born citizens.

     I had a grandfather to my two older children who immigrated to the US. In his original country, he was an engineer. When he arrived, he no longer qualified to pursue his engineering career. He did a number of things including working with a fast food franchise and owning a health food store. He could not be an engineer but he could, and did, do what he could. This happens with many refugees, or involuntary immigrants. They drop from “professional” careers to labor careers.

     Although fictionalized, “Moscow on the Hudson” with Robin Williams is a good illustration of an immigrant/refugee’s process. Robin’s character took many different jobs to continue to survive. He was also fortunate to make some good, supportive, friends early in the process. Some immigrant/refugees have members of family to help. Some have support from others of their cultural, or ethnic, group. (Some are taken advantage of by others of their cultural, or ethic, group because they are ill-advisedly trusted.)

     In all cases, they have inherent motivation to do their very best.

No one wants to stay poor

     My parents were not always at the upper line of the lower income group. Sometimes they were at lower line of the middle income group. No vacations but they did have the ability to buy a home (in the 1960s, a steady income at minimum wage made such things possible) and they could send us to school and we had the privilege of being able to stay in school and study. No significant savings. I was supported in being the first of my family to graduate from college via social support arising from the death of my father (a Korean “Conflict” veteran) when I was 14.

     During those periods when my parents (and the children) lived on unemployment and food assistance, my brother and I could always hear them talking about possible jobs and methods of stretching what savings they had. As part of their midwestern job ethics, they wanted to leave unemployment and assistance as soon as possible.

     My father did various jobs and tried a few businesses. Alas, he had neither the background nor the preparation to make a business succeed. He only knew how to work hard and that, unless one is very lucky, is not enough.

What can be done?

     I truly think that all in the upper income brackets should be required to spend two years in the Peace Corps or equivalent self-supported situation. They should be required to learn what is needed to live when they don’t have access to hoards of resources most of which they cannot claim to have directly earned.

      Just having passed another Father’s Day, I find myself recollecting and recognizing some of what I did wrong while my children were growing up. (I am sure they have a longer list and, perhaps, leaving out some of things that I think of.) Although I don’t think that any sane parent would force deprivation upon their children when it is not required, I should have been much more ready to say “no” than to say “yes”. In particular, not having any choices for a number of years of their earlier years would probably have led to better hygiene and room cleanliness. Sets of chores would have been useful to them as well as the family. Helping me to repair things would have taught them more basic skills.

     What are my excuses? Well, number one was probably not wanting to be the “bad guy”. It is harder to justify a decision that requires constraint when living in a situation where there is no need for tight budgets. Another one, with which others (including professionals) agreed with, was to be “fair” and “consistent” with older half-siblings who basically did whatever they wanted to. I should have ignored their advice and my uncertainty.

Count your blessings

     There are songs about counting blessings. I truly do that. I don’t end up with a sum where I say “oh, I have 347 blessings today”. I just try to be aware of those blessings that I have. It is particularly useful when faced with a situation of anger or frustration. A driver does something rather dumb and I say to myself (sometimes out loud) “well, Charles, when you are a perfect driver, you can yell at others”. Sometimes my wife will complain that I am always trying to envision solutions to problems before they ever occur (and are often unlikely to occur) but the other side of that is that, by being aware of how things COULD go wrong, I am also very aware of my blessing of them not having gone wrong.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Perspective: Minimized or Exaggerated?

     Over in a small city in Spain, the children of the house head out to walk to a local playground to be with their friends. Their parents do not spend their time fantasizing disaster and worrying about their safety. All is as it should be — children are being children and the adults are doing what they need to do for themselves and family. Now jump across the ocean to a small town in the United States. A child decides that they want to go to the playground to play. They ask their parents but the parents are distracted and do not reply so the child leaves a note. Soon, the parent notices they are gone and reads the note. Immediately, they panic. They call the police telling them of their plight. On the way to the playground, a neighbor sees the child walking along the sidewalk without accompaniment, and they call the police to report neglect and endangerment. The child must remain under the “umbrella” of their parents’ control and fear or the parents may have problems.

     Is there a danger? Certainly. Life is uncertain. They may trip on the sidewalk and hit their head. A stranger may drive along and decide that this child should not be permitted sweet dreams and should live through nightmares. A meteorite may fall from the sky, striking the child. They might make it to the playground and, in spite of great efforts to remove all equipment on which they might get hurt, fall off and break an arm.

     Is the potential danger different between that city in Spain and that small town in the US? Maybe a bit but not much. Children do the same types of things all over the world. There are good people and bad people in every country and of every background. People talk about the “good old days” of the 1950s or 1960s when everything was safer and they could just walk to school or go to the playground without any cares. Is the potential danger very different between the 1950s and the 2020s?

     It is probably a bit more dangerous now than it was — but it’s because of population growth, traffic, climate change, pollution, and such. Children are more likely to develop breathing problems because of increased pollution or have greater health problems because of factory food production or pollutants and contaminants. They have a higher chance of being hit by a car because there are more cars on the road. There are more people with mental problems on the streets because the US decided to save money by getting rid of the public hospitals and sanitariums and release them to roam rather than working with them to improve their situation.

     But, at the core, it isn’t much different now from that which it was back “then”. So, why do we have all of these “helicopter” parents — and an attitude from others that demands that they BE “helicopter” parents (or else …).

Perspective..

     One of the big changes over the years, especially in the US but somewhat contagious to the rest of the world is that journalism has declined while infotainment has risen greatly. Journalism is concerned with facts (possibly commented upon or even extrapolated from). Infotainment is concerned with presenting information to people such that they are interested and will continue to pay attention in order to sell advertising. The information may be factual or it may be invented. It is possible for infotainment to include factual research that meets journalistic standards — but that is not a requirement.

     There have always been media stories (newspapers, television, …) that have been more for public interest than because people really need to know. Sometimes coverage of a remote disaster or a family in trouble can bring people together to be their best selves and provide assistance as they can. But when a terrible thing happens to a child 1500 miles away it is a tragedy — a local, isolated tragedy. One child out of 335 million people. Is your child likely to encounter a similar situation? No. But it is always possible to win a lottery and it is always possible that it could be your child hitting that one out of a 335 million people situation. No one wants their child to be that child.

     But in Spain dangers are considered a part of life. In the 1950s USA, dangers were considered to be a part of life. Today, we are often presented with tragedies and problems around the country and world — but, to make it more urgent locally and of greater importance for watchability, it gets lost that this is happening to one out of 335 million (or, globally, 8.05 billion). Danger SEEMS much more likely and, thus, we must hover, we must distrust, we must keep our illusion of control. We have lost perspective. And politicians love fear as they can so easily manipulate people who are angry or fearful.

Perspective can also be minimized.

     The opposite can also occur. An unjustifiable shooting of a minority person occurs and it gets reported. However, there are many more that are NOT reported. If the infotainment media decides that people do not want to see this, or their owners do not want people to see this, then it can be de-emphasized. They may declare it to be a solitary event when it is really something that happens much more often. A journalistic approach would make it clear that this is a single reported occurrence from a pool of many actual occurrences. An infotainment approach is concerned with presenting what their viewers want to see — whether it is appropriately shown or not.

     Why does the infotainment approach maintain and grow? Money. Many people want to be scared, they want to watch hours-long police chases of people in cars, they want to have scapegoats or feel more fortunate than others. Not all, perhaps not even a majority — but enough to keep the owners of infotainment media away from the factual journalistic approach.

     My grandmother used to hand out homemade donuts to trick-or-treaters. My aunt made huge popcorn balls to hand out. In 1968, it was reported — the media inundated with — a story about razor blades found in apples. Was it true? Maybe — but there was never reported health damage from such. But, in 1969 trick-or-treaters would no longer take my grandmother’s donuts. She cried about it. Record profits boomed for candy manufacturers. There are periodically other isolated events forced into people’s awareness about Halloween treats. But it is more of an illusion that the old magician’s tricks at a birthday party. Certainly horribly out of perspective.

     People can demand journalistic integrity by not giving money towards those media without it. But will they? It does not look good.

I am moving my blog over to substack. If you want to see these posts please subscribe here.