- Project Runeberg -  An American Dilemma : the Negro Problem and Modern Democracy /
1251

(1944) [MARC] Author: Gunnar Myrdal
Table of Contents / Innehåll | << Previous | Next >>
  Project Runeberg | Catalog | Recent Changes | Donate | Comments? |   
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

scanned image

<< 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 125
1

*     *
*


H. L. Mitchell, “The Southern Tenant Farmers Union in 194 1,’’ Report of the
Secretary (1942), p. 2.
Cited by Schmidt, of, cU., p. 71.
Ibid,
^
p. 286; and Sixteenth Census of the United States: zp40, Agriculture^
United States Summary, First Series, p. 10.
Bertram Schrieke, who, with a background in Dutch colonial policy, surveyed the
American Negro problem in the early ’thirties, painted the future for a new American
peasantry quite rosy:
“America, and particularly the South, offers a unique opportunity for the develop-
ment of the new peasant. He will do as the old peasant did, produce his own food and
the feed for his stock. With his fruit, maple syrup, cream and butter, home-cured
hams, cereals, and vegetables, he will provide himself a healthier and more abundant
diet than he has ever known. At the same time, in this age of radios, automobiles,
movies, and telephones, he will not be isolated as was the pioneer. The word ‘peasant’
brings unfavourable associations to the American mind. It suggests feudalism. The
agriculturist wishes to be called a ‘farmer,’ but farming implies the production of
commercial crops. However, the peasant is not a serf; he is a hard-working stubborn
character, proud of his freedom and independence on his self-owned land.”*
It should be recalled, however, that this new American peasant, in order to have a
decent living standard—^and particularly if he were to be provided with those gadgets
of modern civilization which Schrieke would give him—^would need a substantial cash
income. This is not, under present trends in agricultural technique and in world
production of agricultural goods, compatible with anything like the present ratio of
labor to land In the South.
The so-called “agrarians”—a small group of Southern university professors, journal-
ists, and so on—also have advocated a return to the land. Their reasons are sentimental
rather than economic and they seem to have had no influence. See: Twelve Southerners,
ril Take My Stand (1930).
The Collafse of Cotton Tenancy (1935), pp. 68-69.
Preface to Peasantry (1936), pp. 6-7. Italics ours.
®^A tendency in Administration circles to abstain from publicly criticizing govern-
ment policies has not been without responsibility for allowing the general public to be
less well-informed on technical points of such public questions than corresponds to its
intelligence and general education. The attitudes toward labor unions, social insurance,
and agricultural policy are as a result too often in black and white: one is either for a
policy as a whole, or against it. The tendency to extreme loyalty on the part of govern-
ment experts has to be understood against the background (i) that the technical plans
for policy are often originally drawn up without much public discussion; (2) that the
Administration seems always to fear that the opposition will make undue use of any
admission of unfavorable eJffects of a policy; (3) that the public expects all members
of the Administration to agree, and if they do not agree they are said to be “bickering”
or “showing jealousy.” This spreads an air of one-mindedness and secretiveness around
policy making, and makes the policy adopted partly a matter of accident. One admin-
istrator, when discussing certain features of the A.A.A. for which he was not respon-
sible, privately remarked: “You cannot expect me to criticize the policy of the govern-
^ Alien Americans (1936), p. 193.

<< prev. page << föreg. sida <<     >> nästa sida >> next page >>


Project Runeberg, Sat Dec 9 01:31:31 2023 (aronsson) (download) << Previous Next >>
https://runeberg.org/adilemma/1313.html

Valid HTML 4.0! All our files are DRM-free