A BLOG ABOUT HISTORY, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE PROBLEMS OF HUMAN DOMINION
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
HIST300A: America's Dustbowl
Question: After reading Worster, to what extent do you believe the Dust bowl was an unnatural disaster? Was it inevitable or could it have been avoided?
Based on Donald Worster’s argument I would agree with his assessment that the Dust Bowl was not a completely natural occurrence. Early on Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains of the 1930’s, Worster argues that, “The storm were mainly the result of the stripping the landscape of its natural vegetation to such an extent that there was no defense against the dry winds, no sod to hold the sandy or powdery dirt.” (13) So while dust storms were of nature making them ‘natural’, the process through which the Dust Bowl was created was unnatural. This is demonstrated through how the history leading to the Dust Bowl. During World War I there was an increasing demand for food especially from Europe; Worster mentions that in 1919 the United States harvested 74 million acres of wheat (89). With the 1920’s the harvesting only increased with the addition of tractors to the farms and bad farming practices. What really demonstrates though that the Dust Bowls were a result of the action of human beings is how after the 1930’s Dust Bowl ended, farmers went more or less back to over producing but justifying by arguing that they were using better farming techniques and had learned from the Dust Bowl. Worster mentions, “The 1942 wheat harvest was larger than it had been in the overflowing year of 1931, and it came in a smaller acreage.” (225) Then in 1954 the dust storms started up again, and these storms were so bad that Worster mentions , “from 1954 to 1957 there were twice as many acres in the Great Plains damaged annually by wind erosion as there were from 1934 to 1937.” (228) So, the dust storms return as a result of the unnatural reconstruction of the lands, by destroying the natural barriers such as buffalo grass which protected against the soil erosion which resulted on the dust storms.
I think that, for the most part, the Dust Bowl was an unnatural disaster. Farmers in the Dust Bowl were constantly overproducing and trying to maximize their yields, especially during WWII, but even afterwards they still believed that maximizing production was key. They also began investing in techniques and technologies, like the tractor, that were extremely detrimental to the land because it broke up the sod and thus left more dirt particles open to be taken up in the dust storms. And even after the Dust Bowl, Americans reverted back to the old ways of overproduction and relying on techniques that weren’t healthy for the land, causing detrimental droughts in the 1950s and 1970s. The only reason that points to the possibility of the Dust Bowl being a natural disaster is the volatile plains environment, which we also saw with Isenberg, and the fact that plains were known to be going through drought cycles about every 20 years. But I think that American farming practices so exacerbated the condition of the plains that they turned the Dust Bowl into an unnatural disaster.
I really like this quote at the end of the introduction: “We are still naively sure that science and technique will heal the wounds and sores that we leave on the earth, when in fact those wounds are more numerous and more malignant than ever.” (8) I think this quote is definitely still true today and goes to show that we are still largely at a loss for how to be in balance with the environment. We still constantly look to science to solve all of our environmental problems, but don’t think about changing our own attitudes toward them. Why not? Science can just give us a quick fix, right?
I too would agree that the Dust Bowl was a naturally occurring environmental phenomena aggravated by man-made situations. While we cannot help the gusts of wind, drought and flooding from occurring we do have an impact on the consequences. American ideals toward a capitalist market pushed for overproduction to make money. This lead to the degradation of soils, loss of native plants responsible for keeping the ecosystem healthy (all in the name of producing) loose and depleted soil was everywhere, and easily moved around by the slightest of movement. Thus the naturally occurring wind storms, (known to occur on the plains) were catastrophic when they picked up the dirty and created black blizzards. I feel as though the storms themselves could have been minimized had the American population not been so driven to produce. Less soil erosion, depletion and land transformation would have occurred thus the storms would have had less severe consequences.
I think its clear that Worster's presents and argument that suggests the Dust Bowl was not simply a natural disaster. Evidence such as over cultivation of the lands for years and years led to less fertile soil as well as the destruction of several natural protecting factors of the lands. In the first couple decades of the 20th century an incredible amount of food was produced and shipped to Europe to aid the ever increasing food demand during the first World War. This is just one example Worster uses in his case toward humans being responsible for the Dust Bowl. To address the last question asked, I partially believe that the storms and Dust Bowl could have been prevented by strict regulation of cultivation on the plains. Yet another part of me sees that scenario implausible because of the extreme ambition and greed of the farmers who wanted to produce as many crops as possible.
Donald Worster claims that both man and nature were responsible for the dirty thirties. Worster declares that excess stripping of the natural vegetation from the landscape in these drought stricken areas of the southern plains is one aspect that caused the Dust Bowl region (13). He also argues that when more land was obtain by “suitcase farmers,” who did not live on the land but only planted crops in excess for monetary benefit, had no regard for the effects their actions caused. Most suitcase farmers did not live within the Dust Bowl region (152). Worster also discusses the new machinery that was being used on the Great Plains to improve the time farmers spent in their fields; it also commercialized farming and made it easier for farmers to remove the natural vegetation, which Worster referred to as “sod busting” (80-97).
I think the Great Plains region was fragile due to severe droughts but the large farming industry’s overproduction of single crops such as wheat depleted the soil, which was a major factor that brought about the Dust bowl. If farmers would have left some natural vegetation that their livestock did not over graze upon and diversified their crops the landscape might have been able to withstand the severe drought and the earth would not have been so easily blown about. Farming had become more of an industry for monetary wealth, then a way of life for most of the region.
There are always more disasters just around the corner. Many of them are completely up to the whims of Nature and mankind can do nothing to stop them. For this reason, plant and animal species fluctuate between low and high populations, and different species thrive while others suffer. The earth has always been this way and always will be. Humanity does not want to submit to Nature’s whims, and Worster mentions how the most advanced civilizations try to overcome the effects of nature rather than live harmoniously with it (165). Because pioneers families in the American west were so hard on the land, they exacerbated the effects of inevitable dust storms and droughts (111). Farmers were overproducing and they continued to plant crops on their already-depleted soil (119). The Dust Bowl itself, with all of its widespread devastation, was not inevitable because farmers could have taken measure to prepare for drought and prevent erosion and soil depletion. The droughts and dust storms were natural and inevitable occurrences of the west, but mankind’s carelessness aggravated the worst of the western climate and weather, causing the unnaturally devastating Dust Bowl.
I believe that the blame for the dust bowl should belong to the American people as a whole. People presume that the farmers were the blame due to their overproduction and grazing their crops, but the advent of machinery had some cause of the dust bowl. I believe if the farmers took solid care of their crops, there perhaps could have not been a severe black blizzard. Prior to the dust bowl, farmers anticipated that there would be a severe drought due to the arid fields, and lack of production. In conclusion, the dust bowl could have been avoided if the people properly took care of the environment, and if the farmers grew nurtured their crops correctly.
Looking at Worster's argument, it is clear that the dust bowl events were a result of extremely poor farming practices in an area that wasn't able to handle the capacity of food produced. Farmers produced massive amounts of crops for World War I, depleting the plains' soil of nutrients. The crops being grown in these areas were nonnative, and further damaged the soil. This degradation of the soil, along with the tendency of drought on the plains, caused the massive storms during the 1930's.
For these reasons, I would argue that the 'natural' events that occurred on the plains were not very natural. Had human practices not degraded the soil to the point that they did, the regularly occurring wind conditions would not have been as negative as they were, avoiding the catastrophic consequences of the dust bowl.
After reading Worster's argument I believe that the Dust Bowl was not a natural occurrence. The stripping of vegetation and land leads to soil infertility which in turn creates soil that cannot be worked with. The crops that were planted were not native to these lands and further depleted the nutrients from the soil most likely leading to the salinization of the soil and leaving it very "dusty" and since this area is very prone to tornadoes, it further enhanced the dust storms that occurred.
I think that the Dust Bowl could have been avoided if farmers took better care of the land and planted crops that would not have depleted the soil of so many nutrients. Also, crop rotation could have helped to replace nutrients that were lost. The American people, however, have a duty to care about their land and if they demand products and crops, farmers are going to give them what they want at whatever cost. Though droughts would have occurred regardless of farming or not, if the environment was taken better care of the Dust Bowl could have definitely been avoided.
As for the second question, I do not think the Dust Bowl was inevitable by any stretch of the imagination. It could have been prevented if farmers had cared more about the proper ways to treat land and not focused as much on producing massive amounts of crop. I think the only way you could say it was inevitable is if you take into consideration the farmers’ mistreatment of the land. But naturally, no, it was not inevitable.
I would have to say after the reading that the Dust Bowl was both a combination of natural and non-natural occurances. What happened in during the 1930's could have been avoided if the farmers across the southern plains would have implemented better farming techniques. The ways that they farmed caused horrible damage to the lands including things such as salinazation and the depletion of nutrients. If the farmers would not gone as crazy with the crop planting to try and keep making money and just tried to make enough to live while also taking care of their land the dramatic impact of the Dust bowl on the farming industry could've been avoided, because things such as droughts or storms happen yearly across the plains but because of their poor farming techniques the negative effects were increased extremely.
land the winds would have had nothing to blow, and Mr. Worster would have had to of written another book promoting Marxism. I've located an academic article composed of scientists who sought to explain the dust bowl through experiments and historical evaluations of North American droughts. In their words "While the severity, extent, and duration of the 1930s drought was unusual for the 20th century, proxy climate records indicate that major droughts have occurred in the Great Plains approximately once or twice a century over the past 400 years ( 25). There is evidence for multidecadal droughts during the late 13th and 16th centuries that were of much greater severity and duration than those of the 20th century ( 25). For example, tree-ring analyses in Nebraska suggest that the drought that began in the late 13th century lasted 38 years." Although 9/10 of this book is an environmental history which consists of facts that any undergraduate student could compile, it's Mr. Worster's introduction that outlines his motivation for writing this book. Unfortunately I only have 4 minutes till 7:00 so I'll just explain my take on this during tomorrows discussion, which I hope will be longer then the last couple weeks.
What I had said before that was, If I wasn't a skeptical person I would have taken this book at face value and assumed that the dust bowl was solely due to the aggressive and destructive nature of capitalism. Although I understand that excessive farming was responsible for the loose soil which caused the dust storms, it was drought which set the whole thing in motion. If their had been no drought the winds would have had nothing to blow, and you can get the rest from the top of my other post.
-Worster begins chapter one with a description of the severe drought the gripped the nation beginning in the early 1930s. Traditional explanations of the Dust Bowl emphasize the lack of rain as the fundamental cause of the severe dust storms that struck the southern plains. -In the Epilogue Worster begins to suggest some broader implications of farming practices on the Great Plains, large-scale commercial agriculture, the capitalist system that has fostered these ecologically destructive practices, and Western lifestyles more generally. What is his message? Do you think another Dust Bowl could occur?
For me, it seems that the Dust Bowl was definitely a result of human activity. The farmers tampered with the natural ecology of the Great Plains and disturbed the health of the soil. If no farmers were active in the Dust Bowl area, that section of the West would have just been a location suffering from drought. The destructive farming practices of the farmers left the soil in a condition that was conducive to erosion by the wind.
I believe that the Dust Bowl was inevitable in that the farmers would not change their practices unless something as catastrophic as the Dust Bowl actually occurred. Human nature is not very open to change if things are going smoothly. If the farmers had no immediate incentive to modify their farming practices, then why should they alter their traditional methods? It is hard to think in the long term when things are going well in the short term.
Worster claims that the dust bowl was “inevetiable outcome of a culture that self consciously set its self the task of dominating and exploiting the land” (4). I think the drought and winds were natural phenomenon’s but the extent of their damage was aggravated by the poor land management practices that had been building up since Americans cultivated the west. If there had been better land management than the dust bowl would not have happened to the extent that it did, however I do think there would have been small scale dust storms due to the climate conditions of the plains during that time. The dust bowl certainly reflects the American values of progress and production over the latter consequences and short term gains over long term effects.
On page 39 Worster mentions some of the solutions that American Engineers and business thought of to “cover the dust bowl.” Some of these ideas included covering the ground surface with a layer of cement and asphalt. Today that idea sounds ridicules but at the time they were very desperate for a solution.
Based on Donald Worster’s argument I would agree with his assessment that the Dust Bowl was not a completely natural occurrence. Early on Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains of the 1930’s, Worster argues that, “The storm were mainly the result of the stripping the landscape of its natural vegetation to such an extent that there was no defense against the dry winds, no sod to hold the sandy or powdery dirt.” (13) So while dust storms were of nature making them ‘natural’, the process through which the Dust Bowl was created was unnatural. This is demonstrated through how the history leading to the Dust Bowl. During World War I there was an increasing demand for food especially from Europe; Worster mentions that in 1919 the United States harvested 74 million acres of wheat (89). With the 1920’s the harvesting only increased with the addition of tractors to the farms and bad farming practices. What really demonstrates though that the Dust Bowls were a result of the action of human beings is how after the 1930’s Dust Bowl ended, farmers went more or less back to over producing but justifying by arguing that they were using better farming techniques and had learned from the Dust Bowl. Worster mentions, “The 1942 wheat harvest was larger than it had been in the overflowing year of 1931, and it came in a smaller acreage.” (225) Then in 1954 the dust storms started up again, and these storms were so bad that Worster mentions , “from 1954 to 1957 there were twice as many acres in the Great Plains damaged annually by wind erosion as there were from 1934 to 1937.” (228) So, the dust storms return as a result of the unnatural reconstruction of the lands, by destroying the natural barriers such as buffalo grass which protected against the soil erosion which resulted on the dust storms.
ReplyDeleteI think that, for the most part, the Dust Bowl was an unnatural disaster. Farmers in the Dust Bowl were constantly overproducing and trying to maximize their yields, especially during WWII, but even afterwards they still believed that maximizing production was key. They also began investing in techniques and technologies, like the tractor, that were extremely detrimental to the land because it broke up the sod and thus left more dirt particles open to be taken up in the dust storms. And even after the Dust Bowl, Americans reverted back to the old ways of overproduction and relying on techniques that weren’t healthy for the land, causing detrimental droughts in the 1950s and 1970s. The only reason that points to the possibility of the Dust Bowl being a natural disaster is the volatile plains environment, which we also saw with Isenberg, and the fact that plains were known to be going through drought cycles about every 20 years. But I think that American farming practices so exacerbated the condition of the plains that they turned the Dust Bowl into an unnatural disaster.
ReplyDeleteI really like this quote at the end of the introduction: “We are still naively sure that science and technique will heal the wounds and sores that we leave on the earth, when in fact those wounds are more numerous and more malignant than ever.” (8) I think this quote is definitely still true today and goes to show that we are still largely at a loss for how to be in balance with the environment. We still constantly look to science to solve all of our environmental problems, but don’t think about changing our own attitudes toward them. Why not? Science can just give us a quick fix, right?
I too would agree that the Dust Bowl was a naturally occurring environmental phenomena aggravated by man-made situations.
ReplyDeleteWhile we cannot help the gusts of wind, drought and flooding from occurring we do have an impact on the consequences.
American ideals toward a capitalist market pushed for overproduction to make money. This lead to the degradation of soils, loss of native plants responsible for keeping the ecosystem healthy (all in the name of producing)
loose and depleted soil was everywhere, and easily moved around by the slightest of movement. Thus the naturally occurring wind storms, (known to occur on the plains) were catastrophic when they picked up the dirty and created black blizzards.
I feel as though the storms themselves could have been minimized had the American population not been so driven to produce. Less soil erosion, depletion and land transformation would have occurred thus the storms would have had less severe consequences.
I think its clear that Worster's presents and argument that suggests the Dust Bowl was not simply a natural disaster. Evidence such as over cultivation of the lands for years and years led to less fertile soil as well as the destruction of several natural protecting factors of the lands. In the first couple decades of the 20th century an incredible amount of food was produced and shipped to Europe to aid the ever increasing food demand during the first World War. This is just one example Worster uses in his case toward humans being responsible for the Dust Bowl. To address the last question asked, I partially believe that the storms and Dust Bowl could have been prevented by strict regulation of cultivation on the plains. Yet another part of me sees that scenario implausible because of the extreme ambition and greed of the farmers who wanted to produce as many crops as possible.
ReplyDeleteDonald Worster claims that both man and nature were responsible for the dirty thirties. Worster declares that excess stripping of the natural vegetation from the landscape in these drought stricken areas of the southern plains is one aspect that caused the Dust Bowl region (13). He also argues that when more land was obtain by “suitcase farmers,” who did not live on the land but only planted crops in excess for monetary benefit, had no regard for the effects their actions caused. Most suitcase farmers did not live within the Dust Bowl region (152). Worster also discusses the new machinery that was being used on the Great Plains to improve the time farmers spent in their fields; it also commercialized farming and made it easier for farmers to remove the natural vegetation, which Worster referred to as “sod busting” (80-97).
ReplyDeleteI think the Great Plains region was fragile due to severe droughts but the large farming industry’s overproduction of single crops such as wheat depleted the soil, which was a major factor that brought about the Dust bowl. If farmers would have left some natural vegetation that their livestock did not over graze upon and diversified their crops the landscape might have been able to withstand the severe drought and the earth would not have been so easily blown about. Farming had become more of an industry for monetary wealth, then a way of life for most of the region.
There are always more disasters just around the corner. Many of them are completely up to the whims of Nature and mankind can do nothing to stop them. For this reason, plant and animal species fluctuate between low and high populations, and different species thrive while others suffer. The earth has always been this way and always will be. Humanity does not want to submit to Nature’s whims, and Worster mentions how the most advanced civilizations try to overcome the effects of nature rather than live harmoniously with it (165).
ReplyDeleteBecause pioneers families in the American west were so hard on the land, they exacerbated the effects of inevitable dust storms and droughts (111). Farmers were overproducing and they continued to plant crops on their already-depleted soil (119).
The Dust Bowl itself, with all of its widespread devastation, was not inevitable because farmers could have taken measure to prepare for drought and prevent erosion and soil depletion. The droughts and dust storms were natural and inevitable occurrences of the west, but mankind’s carelessness aggravated the worst of the western climate and weather, causing the unnaturally devastating Dust Bowl.
I believe that the blame for the dust bowl should belong to the American people as a whole. People presume that the farmers were the blame due to their overproduction and grazing their crops, but the advent of machinery had some cause of the dust bowl. I believe if the farmers took solid care of their crops, there perhaps could have not been a severe black blizzard. Prior to the dust bowl, farmers anticipated that there would be a severe drought due to the arid fields, and lack of production. In conclusion, the dust bowl could have been avoided if the people properly took care of the environment, and if the farmers grew nurtured their crops correctly.
ReplyDeleteLooking at Worster's argument, it is clear that the dust bowl events were a result of extremely poor farming practices in an area that wasn't able to handle the capacity of food produced. Farmers produced massive amounts of crops for World War I, depleting the plains' soil of nutrients. The crops being grown in these areas were nonnative, and further damaged the soil. This degradation of the soil, along with the tendency of drought on the plains, caused the massive storms during the 1930's.
ReplyDeleteFor these reasons, I would argue that the 'natural' events that occurred on the plains were not very natural. Had human practices not degraded the soil to the point that they did, the regularly occurring wind conditions would not have been as negative as they were, avoiding the catastrophic consequences of the dust bowl.
After reading Worster's argument I believe that the Dust Bowl was not a natural occurrence. The stripping of vegetation and land leads to soil infertility which in turn creates soil that cannot be worked with. The crops that were planted were not native to these lands and further depleted the nutrients from the soil most likely leading to the salinization of the soil and leaving it very "dusty" and since this area is very prone to tornadoes, it further enhanced the dust storms that occurred.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Dust Bowl could have been avoided if farmers took better care of the land and planted crops that would not have depleted the soil of so many nutrients. Also, crop rotation could have helped to replace nutrients that were lost. The American people, however, have a duty to care about their land and if they demand products and crops, farmers are going to give them what they want at whatever cost. Though droughts would have occurred regardless of farming or not, if the environment was taken better care of the Dust Bowl could have definitely been avoided.
As for the second question, I do not think the Dust Bowl was inevitable by any stretch of the imagination. It could have been prevented if farmers had cared more about the proper ways to treat land and not focused as much on producing massive amounts of crop. I think the only way you could say it was inevitable is if you take into consideration the farmers’ mistreatment of the land. But naturally, no, it was not inevitable.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say after the reading that the Dust Bowl was both a combination of natural and non-natural occurances. What happened in during the 1930's could have been avoided if the farmers across the southern plains would have implemented better farming techniques. The ways that they farmed caused horrible damage to the lands including things such as salinazation and the depletion of nutrients. If the farmers would not gone as crazy with the crop planting to try and keep making money and just tried to make enough to live while also taking care of their land the dramatic impact of the Dust bowl on the farming industry could've been avoided, because things such as droughts or storms happen yearly across the plains but because of their poor farming techniques the negative effects were increased extremely.
ReplyDeleteland the winds would have had nothing to blow, and Mr. Worster would have had to of written another book promoting Marxism. I've located an academic article composed of scientists who sought to explain the dust bowl through experiments and historical evaluations of North American droughts. In their words "While the severity, extent, and duration of the 1930s drought was unusual for the 20th century, proxy climate records indicate that major droughts have occurred in the Great Plains approximately once or twice a century over the past 400 years ( 25). There is evidence for multidecadal droughts during the late 13th and 16th centuries that were of much greater severity and duration than those of the 20th century ( 25). For example, tree-ring analyses in Nebraska suggest that the drought that began in the late 13th century lasted 38 years." Although 9/10 of this book is an environmental history which consists of facts that any undergraduate student could compile, it's Mr. Worster's introduction that outlines his motivation for writing this book. Unfortunately I only have 4 minutes till 7:00 so I'll just explain my take on this during tomorrows discussion, which I hope will be longer then the last couple weeks.
ReplyDeleteMy whole post was just cut in half
ReplyDeleteWhat I had said before that was, If I wasn't a skeptical person I would have taken this book at face value and assumed that the dust bowl was solely due to the aggressive and destructive nature of capitalism. Although I understand that excessive farming was responsible for the loose soil which caused the dust storms, it was drought which set the whole thing in motion. If their had been no drought the winds would have had nothing to blow, and you can get the rest from the top of my other post.
ReplyDelete-Worster begins chapter one with a description of the severe drought the gripped the nation beginning in the early 1930s. Traditional explanations of the Dust Bowl emphasize the lack of rain as the fundamental cause of the severe dust storms that struck the southern plains.
ReplyDelete-In the Epilogue Worster begins to suggest some broader implications of farming practices on the Great Plains, large-scale commercial agriculture, the capitalist system that has fostered these ecologically destructive practices, and Western lifestyles more generally. What is his message? Do you think another Dust Bowl could occur?
For me, it seems that the Dust Bowl was definitely a result of human activity. The farmers tampered with the natural ecology of the Great Plains and disturbed the health of the soil. If no farmers were active in the Dust Bowl area, that section of the West would have just been a location suffering from drought. The destructive farming practices of the farmers left the soil in a condition that was conducive to erosion by the wind.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Dust Bowl was inevitable in that the farmers would not change their practices unless something as catastrophic as the Dust Bowl actually occurred. Human nature is not very open to change if things are going smoothly. If the farmers had no immediate incentive to modify their farming practices, then why should they alter their traditional methods? It is hard to think in the long term when things are going well in the short term.
Worster claims that the dust bowl was “inevetiable outcome of a culture that self consciously set its self the task of dominating and exploiting the land” (4).
ReplyDeleteI think the drought and winds were natural phenomenon’s but the extent of their damage was aggravated by the poor land management practices that had been building up since Americans cultivated the west. If there had been better land management than the dust bowl would not have happened to the extent that it did, however I do think there would have been small scale dust storms due to the climate conditions of the plains during that time. The dust bowl certainly reflects the American values of progress and production over the latter consequences and short term gains over long term effects.
On page 39 Worster mentions some of the solutions that American Engineers and business thought of to “cover the dust bowl.” Some of these ideas included covering the ground surface with a layer of cement and asphalt. Today that idea sounds ridicules but at the time they were very desperate for a solution.