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 - Footnotes - Chapter 12
<< 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.
Footnotes 1245
smaller, however, and the South’s share In all milk produced (21 per cent) or sold (12
per cent) was still very small in 1940.®
® If we exclude the West South Central states, where the raising of beef cattle
always has been large but never has provided much employment for Negroes, we find
that the rest of the South had an increase between 1930 and 1940 o£ no less than
69 per cent in number of cows and heifers kept mainly for beef production. The
production of hay increased by 53 per cent in the South, whereas the rest of the
country showed a small decline. The number of hogs and pigs increased by 41 per cent
in the South, as against 4 per cent for the country as a whole. (The last figures are
somewhat too low, owing to a change In the enumeration method.)**
® Idem.
M. R. Cooper and Associates, “Defects in Farming System and Tenancy,” U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Yearbook of Agriculture^ ^ 93 ^^ P* H4*
Concerning these present trends, see U. S. Department of Agriculture, The
Agricultural Situation (particularly the issues for March, April, and August, 1942) and
Crop and Markets (for instance, the issue for July, 1942).
Richard Sterner and Associates, The Negroes Share^ prepared for this study (1943),
p. 19. Italics ours.
We shall have to say more about this change later. At this writing it is not yet
known how large the increase in number of wage laborers is compared with the decrease
in number of tenants. Indeed, it is not even certain whether there was any significant
increase at all in number of wage workers between 1930 and 1940.® It is certain, how-
ever, that the increase in number of Negro day laborers—if it did occur—^was much
smaller than the decline In number of Negro tenants. For the total Negro rural-farm
population in the South declined by 4.5 per cent between 1930 and 1940. This decline
was relatively smaller than during the decade 1920-1930 (8.6 per cent), but it is
remarkable that it could go on at all in spite of the lack of industrial employment
opportunities during the ’thirties. The Southern white rural-farm population, on the
other hand, which had been slowly decreasing during the ’twenties (—3.0 per cent)
showed a small gain during the ’thirties (2.1 per cent). The fact that white people
have greater opportunities in farm ownership than have Negroes apparently meant more
than their greater employment chances in nonfarm areas. The records for this decade
show clearly, as we have found, that farm ownership and high tenure status tend to
keep the people on the land.^
One of the reasons why Negro tenants were losing out seems to be that the increased
fopdation pessure had brought about an mtensified racial competition for the land,
* Sixteenth Census of the United States: Agriculture^ United States Summary, First
Series, pp. 30-31.
^Sixteenth Census of the United States: Agriculture^ United States Summary, First
Series, pp. 30-3 x and 52,
*The number of Negro and white agricultural wage workers in the South, in 1930, was
511,000 and 603,000 respectively (see Table i of Chapter ii). These figures include
unemployed workers. The number of employed wage laborers in 1940 was 471,000 (includes
a few nonwhites other than Negroes) and 495,000, respectively (Sixteenth Census of the
United States: 1940, Population^ Second Series, State table i8a-b). It is obvious, however,
that these two sets of figures are incomparable, so in spite of the two last ones being lower,
a certain increase may, nevertheless, have occurred.
® See Sterner and Associates, op, cit,, pp. ix-iS.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
