Essay Contribution by Edin Beslagic
February 21, 2007

Dust Bowl Reaction Paper

Donald Worster started his well-researched book with “The Southern Plains are a vast austerity.” This statement set a tone for rest of the book in that austerity referred to the sour taste of promises and brutality of the climate (Worster, 3). This was an interesting image to keep in mind because it hints toward an emotional involvement of the author in his work. As a matter of fact, his parents suffered through the Dust Bowl. As his argument is developed (that there are alternatives to the capitalist agriculture of America), a question of the author’s identity must be raised. Worster is, in fact, pushing an agenda throughout his book. This agenda roughly says that ignoring the environment in favor of uncontrolled forces (such as capitalistic greed) will lead to a catastrophe. However, why does Worster make use of phrases such as “responsible trustee of the land” (Worster, 232) or applies spiritual words such as “evangelism” (Worster, 240) to argue for responsibility?

Arguably, his agenda also includes lifestyles. For example, he uses Mennonites to show responsible agriculture induced by a pious lifestyle (Worster, 86) and demonstrates irresponsible agriculture as induced by secular capitalistic drive (Worster, 94, 142). He joins causes of the Great Depression with causes of the Dust Bowl by explaining that “business was the national faith” (Worster, 44). Furthermore, the author mixes solid research with arbitrary ideology. He claims that previous settlers of the region were both distinctly aware of all living things coexisting in equilibrium (Worster, 77) and also that all living things depended on each other for survival, while the “white man did neither” (Worster, 66).

Is the atheistic, capitalistic culture of European settlers to be blamed for causing the Dust Bowl? No, because devout Mennonites were astute yet cautious businessmen (Worster, 174) and they survived longer on less land than others (Worster, 86). The Mennonites certainly manage to present a strong case for alternative lifestyles to capitalism and the author gets past the religious lines very cautiously. On the other hand, the author mentions that erosion becomes personal, cultural as well as geological in nature (Worster, 59). He blames optimization and mechanization on not only causing the Dust Bowl (Worster, 90 - 91) but also on changing of family dynamics; this is the last element of his agenda. In his view capitalism first caused an erosion of family cohesion and then mechanization drove these disconnected people out of the lands (Worster, 58). In 1930s most early Dust Bowl refugees were a young couple with a child (Worster, 51) while today “few young people can get a start in this business” (Worster, 233).

Furthermore, the author seems to be attached to an ideological solution to preventing future Dust Bowls: small, respectful, diverse, farm-tending families. On top of the Mennonites, his evidence is the Kohlers, who due to diversified crops and economy managed to survive just miles away from disaster areas (Worster, 110) and the McDaniels, who are diversified, cautious and fearfully respectful of nature. These are great examples of what could theoretically work because examples of what did not work are many. The author identified the problem makers as “unwitting agents” of capitalism and business farming (Worster, 43), plains-depleting cattlemen (Worster, 83), greedy chambers of commerce (Worster, 32), suitcase farmers (Worster, 93), pro-subsidies farmers (Worster, 154) and new age farmers who are rapidly approaching asymptotic limitations of nature by doping soil with anhydrous ammonia instead of fertilizing it with manure (Worster, 236).

These are great arguments supporting the notion that alternative lifestyles are a solution to this environmental crisis; however, they also label Worster as a declensionist. In short, he leads the reader through the story of how the past was great with the Native American harmony, and though it got worse, small spiritually-minded families thrived in disaster. Conservation agronomy had good momentum but once the crisis was over, greedy farmers were back to square one (Worster, 210 - 226). Farms were many in the past but now are being reduced in numbers and replaced by “the machine”. The future is bleak because average plainsmen are now even less prepared for a disaster than they were in 1930s (Worster, 233) and the drought will surely come again in its twenty year cycles (Worster, 233).

This book was published in 1982 and the author cautioned unprepared farmers against droughts that will surely come in 1990s. I am convinced that the author has performed thorough research but I am not persuaded that he has presented an adequate, all-encompassing solution to a very complex problem. If anything, he has oversimplified the solution but managed to retain a subtle tone. A good example of this oversimplification is an assumption that Mennonites do not need the lavish lifestyle that greedy capitalists do; in 1933, one Mennonite man was paid $23.19 in AAA subsidies while a banker received $4270 for his vaster holdings (Worster, 158). This monetary comparison suggests that Mennonites are humble people who would not be as wasteful and wanting of lavish lifestyles. While this may well be true, the author contradicts this theme by mentioning that Mennonites today utilize modern technology just as everyone else but are more humble about it (Worster, 236). Being humble is not a concise solution – it is instead part of an apology.