I point to Baldwin's work because it offers us an interesting angle for understanding the social transformations that helped lead to the Dust Bowl in the Southern Plains. Notably, many observers have pointed to this late-nineteenth-century development of American laborers and farmers gradually losing their sense of independence and connections to the land as they were incorporated into industrial and wage-labor sectors or who attempted independence but found little permanence (such as the "suitcase farmers" who came to the Great Plains to exploit the land but not make a home there).
Did the farmers of the Southern Plains lose a connection with the land? If they did, as Baldwin suggests about the new immigrants, what did the farmers embrace in order to gain some measure of control over their lives? In the drive to overproduce in excess and overuse the land, did farmers lose a sense of having something more than just capital invested in the landscape? What happens when we, as human beings, only see the land as potential capital?
I'd say they did lose a connection with the land in that the farmers used the land as a means to an end, not treating it with proper care. As a result, they lost their spiritual connection as well as a part of their humanity. This happens whenever human beings view the land only as potential capital; we lose a part of ourselves, becoming monsters whose only goal in life is to devour everything in their path to satisfy an unquenchable thirst.
ReplyDeleteWhen we, as human beings, only see the land as potential capital, we do everything possible to exhaust the land. Not thinking about the environment or the future growth of the land, the land is then seen as a way to make as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time. The farmer then skips over paying attention to the little details of the land in hopes of bringing in the most revenue. A perfect example of this is the dust bowl. The over-cultivation in the Midwest by the new settlement causing dust storms which in turn destroyed all the agriculture and livestock. When no action is taken to preserve the land the southern plains soil, once rich and prosperous, was slowly vanishing by the plowing of the much needed prairie grass.
ReplyDeleteThe farmers of the Southern Plains lost their connection with the land because of their culture change to the capitalist view point that many farmers adhered to that professed the belief that farming was strictly performed for the sake of profit, and the “pursuit of self interest” instead of the pure satisfaction from growing crops. They abandoned the philosophy of farming to survive, embracing hard work and appreciating the benefits that the earth can provide through the cultivation of crops. By having a capitalist view of farming, farmers exploited their land by using poor agricultural techniques such as over-rotating crops seasonally and expansively plowing land, which ultimately resulted in depleted soil.
ReplyDeleteIn order to gain some measure of control over their lives and livelihoods as farmers, they embraced numerous federal programs such as the Agriculture Adjustment Administration Act (1933) and the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (1936) that were enacted to provide aid (paying farmers subsidies not to over plant in areas) and technical information (valuable insight from soil examination) that helped demonstrate the proper use of their land. These two (among other) federal programs helped farmers to survive as farmers during the drought that precipitated the agricultural epidemic known as the “dust bowl”.
I believe that farmers lost something more than just the capital they invested in their land as a result of the environmental phenomenon known as the dust bowl. I believe that they lost their social identity. In the nineteenth century farmers were identified as people who farmed the land because they wanted to work in partnership with nature by producing crops in order make a living, and not for personal greed. But, in the early twentieth century the farmer’s culture changed from agrarian in nature to blatant capitalism, which resulted in the loss of their personal connection to their land and nature in general. This cultural change influenced their use/abuse of farmland, which resulted in the desolation of this land when a major historical drought devastated the countryside. The net result of this catastrophe is that it affected their livelihood and caused them to rethink their strategy towards farming.
Finally, as I stated in the previous paragraph, the result of what could happen when human beings see land only as a potential capital investment is that they lose their identity as custodians of the land, which can ultimately affect the land’s productivity and worth. As a result of focusing solely on its’ capital aspect, land may be abused which can relegate it to a useless possession such as what happened during the dust bowl event.
By: Matt Shutz
I think that generally the farmers of the Southern Plains did not have a strong and deep connection with their land to begin with. Many were new to the area, and they relied more on optimism and technology than studying the land and proceeding cautiously. Their naïve faith in Providence gave them the hope and motivation to keep planting wheat no matter what, to stay on their land at all costs.
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen throughout this course, the profit motive of capitalism is the driving force behind virtually all the environmental exploitation and degradation that has taken place in this country. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Love of money is the root of all evil.” When we only see the land as a potential for monetary profit, we do not think or plan further out than the end of the fiscal quarter, or year. Such drastic short-sightedness severely disadvantages our descendants, and ourselves.
There was a definite disconnect between the plains farmers and the land they worked on. Farmers were lured by the possible profits from their land. Machines replaced the workers and the land was used for all it had without regard for sustainability. Capitalism can be a real monster when people loose site of their humanity and the consequences that may arise from using nature and always taking without giving back. Even after it was evident that the Dust Bowl was not just caused by a drought but a result of squeezing the land for all it had; people's judgements today are still clouded by the hopes of profit.
ReplyDeleteI would not say that they lost connection with their land, particularly in that era. I think most farmers (family, corporate, come and go) have a long term investments to the land. Families and corporations obviously because they plan to be there forever. The come and go farmers have no choice but to stay. They may had intended to buy some land, grow enough crop to cover the costs and then some in one years, and then sell the land after harvest. However, the declining 1920s prices would not support that kind of business plan. They knew what they were doing was wrong. It was ancient knowledge that their methods would lead to disaster. However, they continued to chase after the possible dollar. This means that while it is true that they did not always chase after profit, the farmers are now sacrificing everything for capital. As the Dust Bowl indicates, when that happens, only luck can save us from extinction.
ReplyDeleteThe farmers of the Southern Plains did indeed lose their connection with the land. In order for the farmers to gain some measure of control over their lives, Baldwin suggests that the new immigrants were seduced by the allure of white supremacy regimenting themselves into the disciplines of industrial work as the ideal method to gain back the illusion of control in their lives, while having white supremacy becoming a confining factory for the new immigrant.
ReplyDeleteThe southern plains farmers changed their means of labor first from slaves to minority workers, then from human and animal labor to machines, hence the 'factory' and industrialization of farming. The most notable technological advance at this time was the tractor. The tractor, as it may seem, created more efficiency which accomplished more with fewer human laborers; however, the tractor came with huge consequences. In order to pay for the tractor, the farmers needed to farm more, as in needing more acreage. The tractor was also more efficient in consuming the nutrients and in plowing up the land for maximum production. The efficiency led to overproduction in excess and overuse of the land. When the droughts came, the farmers were now unable to farm the land because no matter how much labor or human power or white supremacy the people have over the farm land, there is nothing that can be done if there is no water for the plants. Even during the years before the dust bowl, the farmers were able to contend with lack of water in the southern plains by harvesting winter wheat. New methods were employed to trap any rainfall and moisture that was present by dusting the land. The people of the southern plain prior to 1930's were able to overcome every obstacle that land had presented to the people.
The immigrants developed a sort of confidence that led them to be bit cocky. They had the attitude that God would take care of them in the plains no matter what. So, there was no rain and the southern plains became the dust bowl, the farmers had lost more than just the capital invested in the landscape, but they lost God and their faith in the land and in their future. When we human beings only see the land as potential capital, we not only overuse, misuse, and overproduce the land until it is exhausted, but we also lose our connection with God and spirituality because we have lost our connection with the human community and we have lost our connection with nature, both of which is a source of spirituality.
This reminds of a tee-shirt I once saw that reads “Don't F*** your mother earth!” because your only f***ing yourself.
In the essence of treating land as a profit one will lose connection with the land. The southerns viewed this as a way to make more money. In result they began to over plant the crops during the WW1 as instructed by the government. Farmers hard work and time was also invested in the landscape that was lost. I believe that they lost the care for nature and land; by which seeing it as more of a means for cash. During this time of the great depression america as a whole was out of balance with nature. As humans when we view nature as commodity or source for money we lose that spiritual connection with the land. We feel as a tree is just a tree or a animal is just an animal. That is to say the nature has no significane but only to be used for our disposal.
ReplyDeleteThe farmers first thought about the land was to make a profit which lead them losing any connection they could form with the land. Once they lose connection from the land they become greedy constantly wanting to take as much as you can from the land exhausting it. B seeing the land as profit you miss seeing the beauty of it. During the dust bowl, sometimes Southern plains farmers had to move from farm to farm through the early twentieth century, repeatedly trying to buy land and repeatedly losing it to the bank in the face of drought or low crop prices.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast with a lot of people's opinions, I don't think that the farmers lost their connection with the land. They just changed their connection to the land. In order to exploit the land as they did, they had to work to understand the land and how to best make profits from it. They just have a different view of the land and what it means to them. I do think that they lost a sense of having something more than just capital invested in the land though, since they farmed for the market instead of for subsistence of their own family. They definitely overused and exploited the land. When human beings see the land as only potential capital, the environment gets exploited, as it did in the dust bowl. You get a sort of tragedy of the commons effect when there is no control over who owns the resources. People just use the new technologies on whatever land they can find until it is all used up. They see no point in saving any resources, because that is essentially leaving possible profit untouched.
ReplyDeletethe increased technological ability to exploit the land, mixed with increased profits from doing so led to an emotional shift among among farming communities and was ultimately responsible for the dust bowl. farmers that previously relied on subsistence techniques couldn't stand the test of time with large food corporations taking over. the economic downturn helped prompt many farmers to sell their land to larger corporations, or instead, use improper farming cycles to try to make as much money as possible, but ultimately degrading the land. in the past, a farmers connection with the land was much deeper as their families may have lived on the same plot of land for generations. the sheer act of farming used to take long days of manual labor for just a small plot of land, but with new technology came the moral dilemma of exploiting the land for more profit.
ReplyDeleteI think the farmers lost connection to their land. Although they may have saved up past investments on the farms and everything but their way of profit is gone. Machines took over their positions of getting the job done on the farm more efficiently and faster. It was hard for the farmers to reconnect with the land since they were "pull apart" from it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhen we, as human beings, see the land as potential capital, we do everything in our power and will to get that profit. All we see is the capital/profit, we do not see that we are hurting and exhausting the land.
Farmers, the ones who chose to lay down roots in the plains, had a strong connection to the land. The land was not only their income, their place of habitation, but their identity. There are east coast folks, people on the west coast, and the plainsmen, each different in attitudes toward each other and the environment. The new immigrants Baldwin spoke of were mostly city-dwellers, living in major metropolitan centers on either coast. The industrial work they performed was mostly in cities. The people of the southern plains, the ones making homes for their families, used the land, lived off it. Maybe I don't know what I'm saying, but it sounds good.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious the farmers treatment and opinions on how their land should be used changed by the dust bowl; they lost this connection and began embracing capitalist ideals of mass production and white supremacy. Put quite simply, the consequences of viewing land and nature as nothing more than capital can be defined by the dust bowl: abuse the land, push it past it's limits, and you will pay dearly.
ReplyDelete