|
Post by artraveler on Mar 24, 2020 18:21:32 GMT -8
The Dust Bowl
Ken Burns
This is a two-part PBS documentary from 2012 available on Amazon Prime. I guess most of us whose parents grew up in the 30s have heard stories of the dust bowl, if not directly than in John Steinbeck’s, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden. Burns tell the story through the memories of the son’s and daughters of the people who settled in the Oklahoma pan handle before WWI through the 20s.
These were good times for farmers. The land was rich, rains were plentiful, and crops were bountiful. WWI forced wheat prices high and even after the war prices were kept high riding the era of good times with the return to normalcy of the 20s. Even after the market crash in 29 wheat prices held, until they didn’t. By 1930 the price per bushel had fallen to record lows, and to make up the difference in cash flow farmers plowed more prairie to plant wheat. The market reacted in a predictable manner when supply outstrips demand and hundreds of tons of wheat was left to rot.
At about the same time the first year of a decade long drought began the dirty 30s. The first dust storms began blowing up topsoil from land left fallow after the disastrous harvest. The drought and the dust became an everyday event for the farmers of OK, TX, NM, CO, and KS. Other parts of the plains states also suffered, but the center of the dust bowl was a small town in the far end of the panhandle, Boise Ok. This was not a sudden tragedy it was a slow-motion disaster for the farmers. They could, and often did plan for a bad year perhaps two, but an entire decade with almost no water, most of the panhandle area got less than 12 inches of precipitation a year in this decade. In addition, to the dust and drought was the overexploitation of the land. The farmers did utilize soil conservation techniques which made the drought and the dust worse.
Burns explains all of this through the stories of the people who lived through it. It makes compelling history and informs the viewer. What is at best irritating, and at worst propagandizing, are regular references to the myth of global warming and how man is responsible for every speck of dust and the conditions that created it. Burns, worships at the feet of FDR and gives full credit to FDR for bringing rain and the end of the dust storms. Ignore the propaganda and listen to the stories as they roll out. In these Kung FU Flu times its good to hear that real people exist.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 24, 2020 18:32:16 GMT -8
The Dust Bowl played a role of sorts in many of John Steinbeck's books based on the Okies, especially in California. In particular, The Grapes of Wrath features the aftermath and its effect on one poor farming family (the Joads). The Depression in general is their main problem, though the Dust Bowl no doubt was why they got into such fiscal trouble.
A more direct portrayal came in a grim chapter of James Michener's Centennial, which was made into an episode of the miniseries. The TV version included a scene in which a huge cloud of dust pours down onto the farms -- and the wife of one family sees that the wind is blowing dust in under the door even as she's trying to sweep it out. You'll have to read the book (or watch the episode) to find out where that led.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 24, 2020 19:40:57 GMT -8
Grapes of Wrath is an excellent novel and one of Steinbeck's best. My favorite, reviewed in ST is Cannery Row. It is really short stories tied to the lives of residents of Cannery Row Monterey before the war. Some how, to me the Woads come off as a little false. The overall story fits but the people just don't.
Burns Dust Bowl has real people and some of the stories are heartbreaking. There is, I think a small connection to the current KFF and the dust bowl and how government responds to both.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 24, 2020 20:00:26 GMT -8
I've never read The Grapes of Wrath (in fact, the only Steinbeck novel I've read in full is his parody of French politics, The Short Reign of Pippin IV), but I have seen the movie. I understand it's better, if only because it doesn't push Communism, at least overtly. Whether the Joads come off better in the movie I obviously can't say.
My 10th grade year, the summer reading beforehand was Of Mice and Men. I was new so I didn't have to read it, but we did discuss it in class. An early episode of The Monkees included a bit of a parody of it, or at least of the main characters. I did see the movie later on TCM.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2020 15:45:30 GMT -8
That sounds reasonable good, Artler. That might make for good viewing during the Fauxpocolypse.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2020 15:46:34 GMT -8
Yes, I remember you talking me into reading that. And I did like it. I can resurrect the text of your review and email it to you if you want.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 26, 2020 16:50:49 GMT -8
Thanks, I have it in my files. It's about time to visit Mack and the boys again. Think Cannery Row and I will visit tonight
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 7:46:22 GMT -8
I watched this last night. The important take-away point: Artler is right. This is watchable. It’s an interesting bit of American History. It should be watched. It will add to your knowledge of our country.
This series comes in 3 parts: There’s a five-minute introduction and then (as presented on Amazon) two episodes, each about 1 hr 52 min.
The first episode is by far the best. The second is basically a run-on sentence to some extent. But in the first, you get a real feel for how horrific this was for the people to live through.
I found the narration tiresome (I frankly disliked the narrater) but most of the story comes through from eye witness accounts and these are carefully stacked and presented to give you a real feel for what these people went through and what it meant to them. In that regard, this is A+, well done. Aside from the excellent expert commentary of Shelby Foote in the Civil War series, much of the expert commentary in that series was tiresome.
In The Dust Bowl, I think they do a better job. They leave it up mostly to the participants. Certainly unlike the Civil War series, there are more participants alive to interview. But I just thought the overall tone of The Dust Bowl (aside from the official narrator, who I thought sounded too pompously harsh) was less affected and self-consciously self-important. The people they interviewed (or the footage they borrowed that had previously been recorded) are for the most part straightforward and charming. Even noble.
But then we come to some of the usual Burns excesses. He has a love affair with FDR. And he has some odd fixation on Woodie Guthrie who is given far more prominence in this than is deserved. Mention of this Commie is really rather a distraction.
And it’s not that the second (and final) episode in this series is bad. It’s just that the Burns shtick at this point becomes tiresome. Okay, we get it. Having a mile-high black wall of wind-blown dirt heading your way is no picnic.
The real missing element is the restoration of the Dust Bowl. This important work is given short shrift. We need less caterwauling and more hands-on details, not only with the restoration of the Dust Bowl but more of the details of how people actually did eke out a living during those extremely rough ten years.
We’re left merely to wonder at the essence of life in the Dust Bowl as we continue to be bombarded with photos of large sand dunes, gigantic black dust storms, and people reminiscing. The reminiscing is central to understanding what happened. But it goes on too long and at the expense of what should have been more documentary details, both of how they actually eked out a living and how they got things set right again (in no small part due to the rains returning).
By the end of this, I was left scratching my head how any of these people could continue to live on the land when they couldn’t grow anything. Or maybe some did grow a little? I’m not sure. It’s not clear. And what was their borrowing power? It’s hinted that they could borrow some from the grocer but would eventually be cut off. How did this work? We never get a feel for the day-to-day reality. But we certainly learn (as you would expect) that living where big dust storms occurred regularly was no picnic.
Why did The Dust Bowl happen? If they present FDR as the savior, they gloss over the fact that it was government to a large extent that created the crisis in the first place by incentivizing homesteading and later by artificially increasing the price of wheat. And, frankly (as this documentary is at least honest enough to admit), government’s hand in agriculture has never ceased since then.
But what government can help mess up, they can help solve. It is indeed an interesting political and social story that FDR refused to simply write the region off and tell people to move out. Instead, he wanted to fix things. In that regard, he was successful (via his soil conservation czar…I forget his name). Again, we’re sledgehammered over the head with endless “it was a horrible time” in the second episode when more details on the recovery would have been relevant.
But Burns can only be Burns, I guess. The good can be very good. The excesses just have to be endured, although most viewers, long indoctrinated in the liberal/Leftist shtick, will not likely notice a thing.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 7:56:51 GMT -8
That was an interesting bit of the history, Artler, that I don’t ever remember hearing about before. That and the (I forget what they called them) non-resident farmers who basically bought some land, planted some seeds, and then left. They didn’t live on the land. It was just an investment. Presumably they (or someone) returned to reap the harvest.
It was also interesting that when soil conservation measures were being undertaken, these absent land-owners were a huge impediment to recovery because there was nowhere there to implement the better policies. So farmers (and the irony of this was pointed out) were (at least in some cases) pleading for the government to confiscate the farms of these absent owners.
The irony was that the farmers had always been a breed that didn’t want government at all to tell them what to do. Now, of course, government and farmers (for better or for worse) are joined at the hip even to this day.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 8:23:14 GMT -8
One of the prime themes of this, Artler, is about this region being harsh and not meant for any sustained agriculture other than the wild prairie grasses. This is disingenuous, at best. Wherever man has gone, he has shaped the land (for the better, at least according to his own needs). Granted, sometimes he has destroyed things or made them worse. But I thought it disingenuous to play the “glorified, pristine nature” card when the truth is that there are always going to be trade-offs. You can sit and admire longs stretches of prairie grass or you can put the land to better use. (FDR did wind up turning large areas back to their natural habitat via Federal land purchases which might be considered a good trade-off.) I think Burns is incapable of an honest exposition on these issues. Frankly, he’s always struck me as kind of a weasely character. But it’s an interesting point at the end as to whether or not another dust bowl is on the way because of the draining of the Ogallala Aquifer. Conservation methods are being undertaken. One very nice detail presented in this was the phenomenon of fences. The tumbleweeds ( Russian thistle in this case) would catch against the fences. This would then provide a trap for the sand. Soon, cows were able to easily walk over the fences because of the dune that had built up. An interesting phenomenon. Not mentioned (I think) is that it is the natural act of this Russian thistle to break off at the stem when it dries, form a tumbleweed, and thus disperse its seeds. This was instead presented as a function of the drought. No doubt the drought exacerbated it. But I think this was a lack of attention to detail. Still, the detail of the fences being covered over by sand was a very interesting one. More of this type of stuff would have enlivened the series.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 9:00:52 GMT -8
Interestingly, it said that about 3/4 of the people in the dust bowl stayed put. The rest migrated to California or other parts. It also noted that the overwhelming majority of “Okies” were not from Oklahoma or the dust bowl regions but from further east, spurred on by the FDR Depression. Many were tenant farmers, so unlike some of the very bad-off in the dust bowl, they didn’t even own their own farms.
It’s also interesting to note how hostile touchy-feely Californians were toward the “Okies.” I guess hating white people isn’t new to them.
What is amusing, from today’s perspective, is that at one time (and they give no indication how long this went on…more inherent dishonesty from Burns) the border was closed by the governor to the Okies. You had to prove you weren’t a vagrant by having at least 50 dollars in your pocket. One family the documentary had been following got around this by being met by a relative who could show that these Okies had a place to live.
Nowadays, of course, it doesn’t matter if you have a place live (you can camp out on the sidewalk) and they’ll even shove $50 (or more) into your pocket just for showing up — even if illegally from a foreign country.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Mar 28, 2020 9:03:11 GMT -8
There are some interesting details there, such as the extent of the drought. What exactly were the years of the drought compared to the height of the dust bowl?
James Michener in Centennial, for what it's worth, had part of the problem being that farmers plowed long, straight furrows that the winds off the Rockies would sweep along accumulating dirt. They eventually switched to jagged furrows as a sort of windbreak.
Burns often pays excessive attention to people who are obscure as far as the subject matter. His baseball series came out in 1994, and paid a remarkable amount of attention to a minor league player named Mario Cuomo, who was running for re-election that year and trailing George Pataki. Burns's campaign failed, and Pataki won and served (I think) 3 terms.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 28, 2020 9:08:21 GMT -8
The farmers who settled in the panhandle area do have some culpability for the results of their farming techniques. However, Burns makes it appear that they were so consumed by capitalism and raping the earth for profits that only the benevolent hand of government could and did bring order from chaos.
The so-called modern farming methods brought in by BLM and Dept of Agriculture are at least 2000 years old, dating to the Roman latifundia estates of Caesar, contour farming was used by the Greeks even earlier.
The other thing Burns skips over is the responsibility of government in creating the problem to begin with. The FDR administration through the use of crop subsidies in the dirty 30s created artificial surpluses and shortages.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 9:27:00 GMT -8
Yes, this “raping the earth for profits” shtick was letting this weasel’s skirt show a bit. Had there not been that severe drought combined with FDR’s Great Depression, the nation would have been thanking these farmers for providing cheap and abundant wheat.
One of the great moments in this series is when some of the really big dust storms hit and even in New York City it got to the point (it was said) that boats lingered in the harbor. They dared not come into port because they couldn’t even see the Statue of Liberty.
Apparently such events did make the plight of the dust bowlers tangible and concrete to those outside the bowl.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,020
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 28, 2020 9:31:03 GMT -8
That’s the kind of historical context and minutia that was missing. Granted, it’s obvious by the outcome (and the later restoration) that their farming techniques sucked — in regards to being prepared for a once-in-a-century drought. Obviously their techniques were working very well, even with the quite minimal “normal” rain, and they were getting some bumper crops. I would have loved to learn more about farming techniques, why better ones were ignored, if ancient wisdom was still remembered at all. Where did his soil conservation Czar, for example, learn his techniques? And I still can't find the guy's name via Googling. How quickly we forget.
---
|
|