Note:
Gunnar Myrdal died in 1987, less than 70 years ago.
Therefore, this work is protected by copyright,
restricting your legal rights to reproduce it.
However, you are welcome to view it on screen, as you do now.
Read more about copyright.
Full resolution (TIFF) - On this page / på denna sida - IV. Economics - 12. New Blows to Southern Agriculture During the ’Thirties: Trends and Policies - 1. Agricultural Trends during the ’Thirties
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
252 An American Dilemma
slow rise in domestic consumption has failed—at least up to the present
war boom—to compensate for the loss.^ Southern sugar cane is in a similar
position.® Only in one main commercial crop in the South did a rising
demand keep pace with production—namely, the fruit and vegetable pro-
duction in Florida and the coastal plains. But even for these crops prices
have declined, and their cultivation offers workers still worse living condi-
tions than does the cotton plantation.®
Under this onslaught on the old cash crops of the South, and also induced
by an agricultural policy which we shall comment upon later, dairy farming
has made some headway in the South.*^ There does not seem to be much
hope, however, that dairy farming ever will become a major Southern
Industry. In the Lower South there are certain climatic obstacles which so
far have been difficult to overcome j
and milk and cream require a local
market. Beef cattle and hogs, on the other hand, have shown a big increase.®
Yet the Southeast had, in 1940, still less than one-tenth of all the beef
cattle in the country.®
These are some of the significant changes which have occurred in
Southern agriculture during the decade before the present war boom.
The terrific blow to the cotton economy was the most significant, particularly
from the viewpoint of the Negro. Some of the other changes indicated a
beginning reorientation along new lines. But none of them was large
enough to compensate for the shattering disaster in cotton, for cotton is
one of the most labor-consuming crops in the South.
It has been estimated that on the average 30 million acres of land devoted to the
production of cotton will furnish about 255 million days of work per year in
growing, harvesting, and hauling the crop to the gin. If the same acreage were put
in corn it would require only no million days of labor, or less than onc»half the
time required by cotton, and if seeded to oats or hay the total days of labor required
to produce and harvest these crops would amount to from 45 to 50 million days, or
an equivalent of one-sixth to one-fifth as much labor as if the land were devoted to
cotton production,^®
Thus, even under favorable circumstances it would not have been possible
to avoid widespread unemployment of agricultural labor. But circumstances
were not favorable. For although extensive and commendable attempts
were made to deal with the social aspects of the problem of structural
change, the major New Deal efforts, as we shall find, did not fit into
constructive long-range program for a reorganization of Southern agricul-
ture.
The present war boom, of course, has brought temporary relief. There
has been an increased demand and an increased production of several crops.
The growing of peanuts has been stepped up considerably. There is a greater
production of tobacco, sugar cane and rice 5
soybeans, too, have increased.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
