Dust Bowl – Page 2 – American Disasters

April 30, 2014December 16, 2020

The Dust Bowl: An End to The Gilded Age or a Critique on Government

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Clayton Koppes two part book review of Paul Bonniefied’s The Dust Bowl and Donald Worster’s Dust Bowl offers an interesting comparison on two books about the same general topic. Koppes strongly favors Worster’s book as a more compelling use of the Dust Bowl for a general critique on capitalism, government policy, and technological impact on the environment. As Price cunningly notes in his post, Koppes praises Worster’s use of the Dust Bowl as an example the failures regarding short term New Deal relief, the flaws in agricultural capitalism, the misuse of land, and the need to blame Midwest farmers for the Dust Bowl. Further Koppes critiques Bonnefield’s emphasis on natural blame for the Dust Bowl, as Bonnefield insists that capitalism, free market economics, and technology had little impact on this disaster. From my prospective, it seems almost impossible to argue one way or another about Koppes opinion. As I have read neither book, I am forced to accept Koppes’ interpretation of the author’s arguments as true, well thought out and warranted. If everything that Koppes interprets and reviews is true, I would say his article seems justified. Nevertheless, one must be careful as Koppes could very well have had an ideological bias behind his review.

When I was reading this book review, I could not think about the historical significance of the Dust Bowl. As Koppes notes, there has been little scholarly work covering the Dust Bowl and of the work that has been done, there is still much debate about the cultural, economic, environmental, governmental, and historical significance. There seems to be large scientific evidence (as noted in Worster’s use of the lack of grass cover, diminished crop yield, and the lowered population rate in affected areas) that humans, pushed mostly by the government, attributed to Dust Bowl and the black blizzards. While we can blame whomever we would like, the question must now be about the historical meaning of the Dust Bowl. If we consider Worster’s argument and place the entire blame on the government and capitalism does this mean we should extend the Gilded Age through the 1930’s? If it was truly the government wanting to extend power to large corporations through exploitative measures, certainly this seems justified. As seen in this course, the Gilded Age was defined by disasters of premature technological innovation and favored the expansion of powerful companies. However does this mean that the Gilded Age continued into the 1980’s like Koppes mentions? How much does government favor large corporations and big business even today? Should we blame capitalism for modern environmental disasters or do we blame the failures of technology and ignorance? Personally, I think Koppes book review opens up many different discussion points about the meaning of the Dust Bowl. The 1930’s is often considered a hybrid time period mixed between the Depression and World War II and thus many of the events have been underreported. I do not think we can expand the Gilded Age and place blame for the Dust Bowl on Gilded Age policy or any economic policy. From what I have interpreted about these two books, the Dust Bowl seems more an unknown consequence of government policy. The New Deal policy was not purposely imposed for the destruction of natural land nor for the promotion of big business. It was more what FDR thought would be the best temporary fix for the Depression and unfortunately the Dust Bowl was an unforeseen problem.

April 30, 2014December 16, 2020

What Would Thoreau Do?

I agree with Price when he wrote that Koppe’s review is lacking. “His indictment of boosterism and expansionary economics fails to connect policy with environmental consequences.” However, it’s also important to remember the state of the environmental movement at the time of the Dust Bowl. At this point in time we have national parks, the writings of Thoreau’s, and the beginnings of the Sierra Club – but not much policy. And so I again agree with Price when he wrote, “Over irrigation of water sources and overuse of soils certainly can have dangerous environmental impacts, but Koppes fails to identify any policy of wrongdoing.” Koppes casts the farmers in a negative light – though legally they had not done anything “wrong”.

Koppes writes, “Conservation as a cultural reform had come to be accepted only where and insofar as it had helped the plains culture reach its traditional expansionary aims.” So in that sense, although the foundations of environmentalism have been set, environmentalism is only valued to the point that it meets short-term economic efficiency and growth. Farmers were still thinking in the short term. Exploit the land now for a quick profit with heavy machinery, fossil fuels, and chemicals- but at a point at which you fail to incorporate ecological economics and place value on ecosystem services, you’ve got a lot of long-term consequences. But according to Koppes, “for the individual farmer, devoted to profit maximization in the present, the system is not irrational.” Koppes attempts to tie the Dust Bowl Tragedy to economic systems; capitalism, labor exploits, industry. But does not adequately address policy or culture.

But while I think that Koppe’s argument is somewhat lacking, I think his message is clear: there will likely be consequences when we exploit the land. He writes that the Dust Bowl is where “social forces and natural conditions converge”. And I believe this review serves as an important reminder that our actions can have potentially devastating consequences. Fortunately, our environmental policy has developed tremendously since the Dust Bowl, but we still have ways to go. And our culture as a driving force for conservation could still use some work too.

April 29, 2014December 16, 2020

Dust Bowl: Issues of the Gilded Age…Still Today?

During the Great Depression, a devastating event occurred that included social, economic and natural forces to create a catastrophe known as the Dust Bowl. In Clayton Koppes’ evaluation of the two novels by Paul Bonnifield and Donald Worster and their discussion of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s, his bias is clear when he assesses the novels as a play on the trend of the Gilded Age’s capitalism.

Prices’ observation of Dusty Volumes review on the detailed books relating to the Dust Bowl is strong in evaluating how Koppes uses this review as a platform to voice his own argument. Worster described the Dust Bowl as “primarily the work of man, not nature” (536), and Koppes uses this as an underlying theme for his overall argument and to also defend Worster’s three beliefs of capitalist agriculture.

I found it interesting how Koppes includes the notion of the goal for the individual farmer to achieve profit maximization then, and even still today. The reliance on government cleanup has placed confidence in farmers that sustainability of the land will continue as long as technology proceeds to advance. Here is another parallel from the Gilded Age to today, the ongoing theme of trust in technology. In Paul Bonnifield’s argument (contrasting that of Worster) he claims, “He stresses that natural forces, not plowing, caused the Dust Bowl, although he concedes the farming practices made it worse. The problems could be solved, however, by technology technique, and (especially) larger farm size” (538). It is apparent here that Koppes’ displeased with Bonnifield’s book when he says that the book has a possibility of provoking debate with Worster’s argument, however fails under the pretense that the presentation is unsophisticated. Even in the video documentary, The Plow That Broke the Plains, proves the reliance on technology for economic benefits, and how that can ultimately lead to a disaster such as the Dust Bowl.

In the video and through photography, imagery played a large role into how historians were able to perceive the events of the Dust Bowl. With powerful images of farms, families and destruction people all around the nation reacted to the disaster and gave a plea for the government’s assistance. Relating to the plea of government intervention, Worster also brings up the distrust of the government and the policies within the New Deal and its theme of “normalcy”, however, Koppes finds that an expansion on reflected the needs of capitalism in crisis would make his argument even more effective.

Again, I concur with Price’s examination of Koppes’ argument on his views of Plains capitalism. The blunt nature by which Koppes presents his information, by blatantly disagreeing with Bonnifield’s views Koppes goes so far as to call it underdeveloped, even without rightfully proving support for his claim. As I have addressed quite a few topics including capitalism, technology and government intervention…the Dust Bowl is yet another example of the epitome of the Gilded Age disaster. Koppes’ infers in his support for Worster that these issues are apparent and dangerous still today, are there any examples or possible areas in the US today where this is evident?

April 28, 2014December 16, 2020

Make Way For The Plowman

So an interesting The Plow That Broke the Plains is, a rather boring short documentary film but some interesting takeaways and phrases. Shot in 1936, this film documents what happened in the Great Plains region of the Midwest when new agricultural farming eventually led to the Dust Bowl. It was written and directed by Pare Lorentz with some interesting music selections from Virgil Thomson. I will come back in a little to the music subject but first some commentary on the effectiveness and overall message of the film. Overall, it seems to succeed in delivering the message of the seriousness of the problem caused in the Great Plains by the misuse of land. Using pictures and film of the Plains, the classic documentary explains the over-cultivation and how mixed with the drought brought about the Dust Bowl throughout the Midwest. To understand a little better you can read Price’s blog post on the readings for class. He explains what the film shows through images in which profit maximization, Plains capitalism and Gilded Age failures mixed with the Midwest drought directly led to the Dust Bowl. But, do not think so fast; don’t worry folks- the US government is on the scene to help! Much criticism seems to mention the poetic manner in which Lorentz’s documentary style uniquely captures the essence of the New Deal 30’s.

There were some cool phrases and scenes I thought deserved just to be thrown out there as sort of funny and interesting: “Pioneer came to the Plains,” “Make way for the plowman,” The great day was coming… day of profits,” and the scene where there is a back and forth comparison between the US battle tanks in combat and the new plow machines rolling over the lands of the Midwest.

However, in my opinion the most influential subject to mention was the music. In my mind, the music was rather amusing and clichéd. Supposedly, a famous film score, Virgil Thomson seems to constantly have upbeat, popular cliché songs playing in the background with scenes of the problems depleting the Great Plains are playing in the background. I’m assuming that at that time getting a sound crew to travel all across the plains to shoot people talking and sounds of the lands was rather expensive or impossible so Thomson made the score himself. It is pretty funny to listen to the numerous folk songs and religious sounds playing to the pictures of dry lands.

April 28, 2014December 16, 2020

Dusty Volumes, Hazy Politics: The Ambiguous Intersection of Nature, Economics, and Disaster

Back in February, we analyzed how Frederick J. Turner and William Cronon viewed the expansion of the American West as an effort of manifest capitalism, as well as destiny. As Emily noted, they presented the idea that the development of nature was inexorably a consequence of commerce and economics. To Clayton Koppes, the Dust Bowl provides no exception. In Dusty Volumes, his review of works by Donald Worster and Paul Bonnifield, Koppes strongly identifies with the argument that the Dust Bowl was an ecological consequence to an economic trend: Gilded Age speculation and profit maximization. While dismissing Bonnifield’s defense of agrarian capitalism as “xenophobic boosterism”, Koppes praises Worster’s indictment of the capitalist agricultural mindset as explaining the environmental origins of the Dust Bowl. (539)

Dusty Volumes is a short review of two detailed books concerning the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, as well as the possible economic causes of the great drought. Therefore, one would be very rushed to use it as a substantial source of disaster analysis. Nonetheless, Koppes seems to use the book review as a platform to voice his own conclusion on the subject. He strongly defends Worster’s “three maxims” of agricultural capitalism, which argue that the pursuit of profits and prosperity led inevitably to acceptance of environmental consequences in the West. (536) Worster and Koppes agree that the New Deal programs of subsidies and conservation provided some relief to troubled farmers, but little or no reform to the destructive capitalist system that incentivized the endless cultivation of farmland. Koppes also utilized the opportunity to bash the ideologically opposite position to Worster presented by Paul Bonnifield. Unlike Worster, Bonnifield argues that farmers’ limited access to technology and economies of scale led to unsustainable farming techniques and the onset of the Dust Bowl by the 1930s. Of course, Koppes dismisses the idea of ‘bigger capitalism’ as the proposal for more tenable farming practices.

While Koppes’ review succinctly outlines his views on Plains capitalism, his evidential base is sorely lacking. His indictment of boosterism and expansionary economics fails to connect policy with environmental consequences. Overirrigation of water sources and overuse of soil (as my research also investigates) certainly can have dangerous environmental impacts, but Koppes fails to identify any specific policy of wrongdoing. Was it the fault of the Reclamation Bureau or the Department of the Interior? Or was it the Gilded Age industrialists who manipulated agricultural prices with their control of the railroads? Koppes fails to go beyond blaming the farmers themselves for the overproduction of crops and misuse of the farmland. After all, the farmers themselves did not choose to be capitalists- they had to respond to market forces in order to survive on the Plains. As a result, Koppes’ assignment of blame to farmers and their practices for the Dust Bowl disaster is an unjustifiable, if not dangerous, conclusion to make.