Page 139 - Mocarelli, Luca, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2020. Maize to the People! Cultivation, Consumption and Trade in the North-Eastern Mediterranean (Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century). Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 139
buckwheat or maize? ultimately, potatoes!
tential, maize only gradually undermined the work organization and field
structure adapted to buckwheat. This is also an opportunity to compare the
various conceptions of the importance of individual crops and adaptation
mechanisms, as well as to underline the components of the perception of ei-
ther maize or buckwheat.
The introduction of maize was encouraged by professional organiza-
tions, agricultural societies, and the authorities. Despite the influence of
these institutions, it took much convincing and practical demonstrations
to persuade peasants to gradually dedicate a larger percentage of their fields
to maize. The central part of the Slovenian territory, i.e. Carniola, repre-
sents an obvious example. The economic and social dilemmas and uncer-
tainties that accompanied the introduction of maize are apparent from the
contemporaneous press. Moreover, heated discussions took place in the
newspapers between the advocates of either buckwheat or maize, as histo-
rians already noted decades ago (Gospodarska 1970, 262). The debate was
relevant for the entire Slovenian territory, even though the articles focused
on the conditions in Carniola. An article from 1846 is one such example:
its very title – “Hvala ajde” or “Praise to Buckwheat” – indicated the clear
standpoints of the text. Already in the introduction, the author employed
the method of moral discrediting to support his arguments. First, he dis-
credited “foreigners” who were not familiar with the local conditions yet
reproached Carniolans for producing buckwheat, a less productive and
more sensitive crop. This supposedly suggested that Carniolans prioritized
tradition over “progress”. The “learnedness” of certain natives represent-
ed another example of discrediting the “opponents” of buckwheat. This is
an example of a preliminary discrediting of the expert approach aimed at
increasing the overall productivity of agriculture and therefore calling for
certain changes in the structure of crops and models of farming. It is an ex-
ample of opposing the idea of “progress” and productivity as the driving
force of the increasingly capitalist economy in agriculture. Such an expert
approach supposedly neglected the experience of generations of peasants.
Allegedly, experiments and models of good practices could not make up
for their centuries of experience in farming. These reproaches were aimed
at the advocates of maize in particular. The argument from the neighbour-
ing Province of Carinthia – that the extensive introduction of maize had
significantly improved the food situation and that famine was therefore no
longer a permanent threat – did not carry much weight with the authors,
whose concern was: “How shall we preserve the good name of our belov-
137
tential, maize only gradually undermined the work organization and field
structure adapted to buckwheat. This is also an opportunity to compare the
various conceptions of the importance of individual crops and adaptation
mechanisms, as well as to underline the components of the perception of ei-
ther maize or buckwheat.
The introduction of maize was encouraged by professional organiza-
tions, agricultural societies, and the authorities. Despite the influence of
these institutions, it took much convincing and practical demonstrations
to persuade peasants to gradually dedicate a larger percentage of their fields
to maize. The central part of the Slovenian territory, i.e. Carniola, repre-
sents an obvious example. The economic and social dilemmas and uncer-
tainties that accompanied the introduction of maize are apparent from the
contemporaneous press. Moreover, heated discussions took place in the
newspapers between the advocates of either buckwheat or maize, as histo-
rians already noted decades ago (Gospodarska 1970, 262). The debate was
relevant for the entire Slovenian territory, even though the articles focused
on the conditions in Carniola. An article from 1846 is one such example:
its very title – “Hvala ajde” or “Praise to Buckwheat” – indicated the clear
standpoints of the text. Already in the introduction, the author employed
the method of moral discrediting to support his arguments. First, he dis-
credited “foreigners” who were not familiar with the local conditions yet
reproached Carniolans for producing buckwheat, a less productive and
more sensitive crop. This supposedly suggested that Carniolans prioritized
tradition over “progress”. The “learnedness” of certain natives represent-
ed another example of discrediting the “opponents” of buckwheat. This is
an example of a preliminary discrediting of the expert approach aimed at
increasing the overall productivity of agriculture and therefore calling for
certain changes in the structure of crops and models of farming. It is an ex-
ample of opposing the idea of “progress” and productivity as the driving
force of the increasingly capitalist economy in agriculture. Such an expert
approach supposedly neglected the experience of generations of peasants.
Allegedly, experiments and models of good practices could not make up
for their centuries of experience in farming. These reproaches were aimed
at the advocates of maize in particular. The argument from the neighbour-
ing Province of Carinthia – that the extensive introduction of maize had
significantly improved the food situation and that famine was therefore no
longer a permanent threat – did not carry much weight with the authors,
whose concern was: “How shall we preserve the good name of our belov-
137
