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’ “Dusty Volumes: Environmental Disaster and Economic Collapse in the 1930’s” is a review on two books with two competing theories about the study of the Dust Bowl. With that being said, it’s interesting that both of these theories cover the topic of what the disaster of the Dust Bowl really meant. My colleague jessica42 summarizes these two theories very well: “[Bonnifield] argues that the Dust Bowl has been scholarly researched to a minimum because it is primarily defined as a natural disaster that only resulted in economic downfalls” and “Worster’s theory of nature as a source of capitalism led to the severe destruction of the environment.”
This review offers great insight on how to approach historiography as well. Personally, I’m doing research on the Dust Bowl to use for my final paper so this segment gives me some ideas on how to write it up. By comparing two sources of arguments, Koppes sheds light on a particular aspect of the Dust Bowl that he wants to focus on, in this case how the disaster is seen and how the disaster is interpreted. I agree with his statement “scholarly attention to the Dust Bowl has been slight” because most scholars view this event as an isolated disaster with one lesson to be learned about why we shouldn’t over-farm land. But I disagree, and that’s what I will be writing about in my paper.
All in all, Koppes’ review is itself a good source of comparing two arguments. And through that comparison does he formulate a thesis about the study of the Dust Bowl; it’s small and needs to be rethought about.