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 - 12. Farm Security Programs
<< 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.
274 An American Dilemma
]arm areas. Even so, it must be said from the beginning that, however
well-directed and otherwise commendable these efforts are, they do not
quite measure up to the size of the problems involved. We have found
that $5,3CX),ooo,ooo was appropriated for A.A.A. policies during the period
1934-1941** Most of this was A.A.A. benefit payments, a disproportionately
large share of which went to the big landlords. The outlays for Farm
Security programs during the same period amounted to about one-fifth of
this amount ($1,121,000,000), and a considerable part of this sum con-
sisted of loans on which repayment could be expected.*^^ And, as for the
Negro’s share, it must be strongly emphasized that it does not compare
with his relative needs. It is, as we shall indicate, much more difficult for a
Negro than for a white farmer in similar circumstances to receive assistance
in this form.
The explanation of this is simple. The disadvantaged groups in Southern
agriculture, and particularly the Negroes, are politically impotent.*" The
consequence is not only that the program that has been instituted in their
behalf is more limited than is other farm aid, but also there is less assur-
ance about its being continued. At the end of 1941 a congressional com-
mittee, headed by Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, one of the leading
Southern politicians, while wanting to maintain the A.A.A. payments, in
all seriousness proposed that all Farm Security activities be abolished in the
interest of wartime economy. There are several reports about the Farm
Bureau, under the chairmanship of an Alabama planter, having pushed
similar demands.*^* The result was a serious curtailment in the budget of the
F.S.A. in 1942J otherwise it has so far been saved. But the incident is an
indication of the usually rather noncooperative, and sometimes outright
hostile, attitude toward the Farm Security work among those who have
command of the power in Southern politics—an attitude which those who
attempt to find out about the situation in the South cannot avoid observing
time and again. There actually seems to be a notion that since this kind of
assistance is given to poor people it is ^^relief” and, consequently, bad,
whereas the fact that A.A.A. payments are distributed to all farmers, so
that those in higher income brackets receive a much larger share than others,
makes them ^^business” and not “relief.” Farm Security benefits are like
manna coming from heaven and there are those in the South who welcome
it even outside the beneficiaries themselves. But those who favor the F.S.A.
do not have political power.
The differential treatment of the Negro can be explained on similar
grounds. The local administration is not entirely in the hand of the officials
of the Farm Security Administration. Clients, to be accepted, usually have
* The increase in prices brought about by the A.A.A. can be counted as an additional
subsidy.
^ See Chapter 22.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
