Woody is one of my heroes. He stood up against wrongs regardless. He stood up against racism, the exploitative bosses and for equality and the rights of all people.
Tom Joad is one of my favourite songs of his. He encapsulated the whole of John Steinbeck’s superb book – The Grapes of Wrath – in one song. It is the story of the dust bowl – the people driven off their land by climate change and the banks – the exploitation, starvation, desperation and violence.
But Woody’s song was a song of defiance. No matter how big the enemy is you stand up for what is right. No backing down!
Excerpt – Woody Guthrie – Tom Joad
Ever’body might be just one big soul
Well it looks that a-way to me
Everywhere that you look, in the day or night
That’s where I’m a-gonna be, Ma
That’s where I’m a-gonna be
Wherever little children are hungry and cry
Wherever people ain’t free
Wherever men are fightin’ for their rights
That’s where I’m a-gonna be, Ma
That’s where I’m a-gonna be.
That’s where I’m gonna be too!
It is actually the story of people who were so uneducated they didn’t know how to farm properly. They never followed the 7 year rule of allowing the soil to rest for one year in 7, resulting in over-farming the same soil.
That’s a bit of an oversimplification. The overfarming was the result of mechanisation. The mechanisation was funded by the banks and the farmers were more or less encouraged to go bigger and bigger by grants and loans. They scratted up hedges which allowed erosion and they overfarmed the bigger fields. They could not afford the fertilisers necessary to keep up tilth. They were chasing their tales to keep ahead of the game.
It was the system that drove them to bad farming practices. Too many people after a fast buck as usual.
Which all boils down to over-farming, right?
Or do I need to give you a complete analytical discourse on every occasion?
Actually, many farmers had very small steads and in no way could afford to spread the 7 year programme around. They simply didn’t have such a large choice of fields to shut down for a year. Coupled with severe drought problems.
As for mechanisation – that was only for the wealthy farmers – hardly those that were the focus of Steinbeck’s book.
no – you were blaming the uneducated farmers. but I blame the system that forced them into bad practice. big difference. a lot of the land was leased and the farmers forced to do those practices. they did have tractors. the banks pulled their support and chucked them on the scrapheap with no way out.
I think you need to re-visit the book!
It’s not about rich farmers with vast farms and machines!
It’s about the plights of the poor homestead farmers.
The uneducated.
FFS, stop arguing with your own rotten memory!
No. I didn’t say rich farmers. The farmers were exceedingly poor and mortgaged to the hilt. I said they were exploited by the bankers and wealthy to overextend, take on machinery they couldn’t afford, farm differently and then dumped and shat on. They did have their tractors.
You blame them – I blame the investors and bankers who used them and then dumped them.
But that was a great book and is about due for a reread.
I can suggest you re-read your own post as above as you went into the spiel about wealthy farmers with all the machinery money could buy.
Obviously they too were affected – but they weren’t the centre point of Steinbeck’s book.
As if Woody was writing laments for the disenfranchised bourgeoisie! I really don’t think so!
I know the damned thing off by heart – rammed down my throat from school and I still have that copy. Must return it someday…
No – I didn’t say rich farmers. You inferred that. They were living hand to mouth and mortgaged to the hilt but were encouraged to overextend to buy tractors and to dig up hedgerows to produce more crops. When it went wrong the banks reneged and kicked them off. A lot were tenant farmers who leased. The banks were ruthless and showed no latitude or compassion – a social disaster that nobody cared about.
You were right about it being bad farming coupled with drought but I disagree on the cause. You blamed the farmers – I blame the wealthy bankers who drove them to it.
Look at your post at 6.08pm – see the reference to mechanisation – who do you think was getting bank loans for goodness sake? The guy with 20 acres? Or the guy with 20,000 acres?
Unfortunately back in those days, they simply didn’t know too much about the 7 year break rule.
Some didn’t even grasp crop-rotation either.
One thing is for sure in the book – Tom Joad is certainly not or ever was a wealthy man as he’s just been released after serving 4 years in jail. Tom Joad himself wasn’t driven off any land as he was actually in jail at the time and upon release came back to nothing. He had to find his wife and children who had moved on towards California. And the story continues with their struggle to set up a new life in California.
So we have a dilemma here – either this post is about Steinbeck’s book featuring Tom Joad – a dirt poor farmer with zero harvesting mechanised equipment with a small homestead…
Or it’s about the plight of farming in general, to encompass those wealthy enough to be even affiliated to a bank in the first place.
Now the reason I know this is: back in 5th year in school we did this book as one of our 2 a year books in English. This was coupled with our History class as a catch-all kind of method – from 2 angles. It was a sort of new educational concept to try and teach more in depth methods on a certain subject. Somebody somewhere in education curriculum authority must have been under the impression that many of us were interested in farming – who knows.
Anyway, I got a Higher (your A-level) in both English and History.
The choice is yours – but accuracy is always the best policy.
Well that’s your inference. Not mine. My understanding was that they had quite large areas to farm because the land was plentiful but were not in the least bit wealthy – working hard to keep ahead of the game with their profits eaten up by the banking system who loaned and leased at high rates. But that is by the by.
The song was about Tom Joad and was inspired by the book. Woody was really referring to the way the desperate farmers were exploited. They were kicked off their land, promised good money in California and then exploited on starvation wages. Any attempt to unionise was met with vigilante thugs.
I don’t accept the choice because they were both interrelated. The song is not about farming – it is about social injustice and exploitation. These were poor people who were used all along the way.
My inference? Your text actually. Hence my comment – cemented with an A level pass on it. You have your story, I’ll keep my A level.
Fine I wasn’t after stealing your A Level.
Reblogged this on Opher's World and commented:
Such a powerful songwriter!!!