In this article, “Cooking up Non-violent Civil-disobedient Direct Action for the Hungry: ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the Resurgence of Radical Democracy in the US” by Nik Heynen, the focus is on feeding the hungry people who live in the city even though it is illegal to do so. The main part of the article that I find interesting is that there are laws that restrict people from feeding other people who are in need. I think that it is ridiculous that feeding the hungry is no longer a governmental issue but rather something for charities to be in charge of (1227). Even if the charities wanted to ask for more help or advocate for governments to start new programs to provide food for others, they cannot. There is nothing that the charities can say nor do in order to change this dynamic as the charities must be careful not to offend any of the governmental parties nor their “clients” (or wealthy benefactors) that they rely on as Heynen describes how charities are dependent on the people and governmental grants in order to keep their doors open (1227). This limits who has the power to stand up for the hungry. Personally, I can assume that if people cannot afford to feed themselves nor feed their families, then they probably do not have the means to change or even challenge the socially accepted system already in place. So, it is up to the people who are educated and have the means to stand up for them.
In many cases around the world, it is illegal to feed people on public or governmental property. This may seem harsh, however, I understand where the law is coming from. I work in a restaurant and we must be very careful in the way we store, handle, prepare and cook the food before we can sell it. Food Not Bombs, a direct-action social movement, with branches located in the U.S. and worldwide, uses food donated by local grocery stores that are “slightly spoiled” and past the sell by date (1228). I can definitely understand how that is a risk feeding it to others. The government’s “job” is to keep people safe. They cannot do that if people are feeding others slightly spoiled food.
On the other hand, the government is letting hundreds of people go hungry every day and that is not ok. The slogan for Food Not Bombs is, “food is a right, not a privilege” (1225). I believe this to be completely true; it is a right, a basic human right, to have access to food, it shouldn’t be a gift that charities hand out to people that they think are in need of it (this in no way diminishes charities- they are an asset and relied upon by many). If civil disobedience is what will feed the people who need to be fed, then it should continue. This particular organization is doing what the government is failing to do- providing for the people who are in dire need of access to a basic human right, food.
In the end, I think that while the government has a point in trying to regulate where people get fed, I think that the whole problem is that there are hungry people that are not being taken care of by the government. So, non-violent, civil-disobedience as a way to bring attention and remedy the problems that the governments are largely ignoring is better than letting people go hungry. Even though the food that they are cooking and eating is not ideal, they are utilizing food that is (probably) still good in order to minimize waste and excess and feeding the people who are more than willing to eat the food knowing full well where it came from.
Works Cited:
Heynen, Nik. “Cooking Up Non-Violent Civil Disobedient Direct Action for the Hungry: ‘Food Not Bombs’ and the Resurgence of Radical Democracy in the US.” Urban Studies 47.6 (2010): 1225-1240. Web. 03 Dec. 2014