 |
Book Reviews of Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930sBook Review: Comprehensive, but a bit dry Summary: 3 Stars
I had to read this book for my American history class. It is a very comprehensive and insightful book about the Dust Bowl, but in not the usual historical way. It looks deeply into the environmental roots of the Dust Bowl and has some great photographs, both ecological and social. I would highly recommend this book for anyone who i s into environmental history. (But I'm not really, so it might be a bit dry and boring for those who aren't.)
Book Review: Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930's Summary: 5 Stars
I was very interested in this time period and exactly what happened. I found this book to be interesting and informative. The service was prompt and the book was in excellent shape.
Book Review: Not quite grasping others' response to this book Summary: 5 Stars
I'm only commenting here because I have read and enjoyed this book and am not at all grasping some of the comments about it on these pages.
First, for a book of American environmental history, it is hardly "dry." The writing is powerful and engaging. But it's a history book. Worster takes us into some of the analysis of why he blames those he blames for the problem, and yes that means talking about some pretty mundane documents and proceedings. I think he does a truly great job of keeping it interesting.
Then there is the "Marxism" issue. Some commenters above suggest that he somehow urges a Soviet-style reform. That is just plain idiotic and wrong. His "Marxism" is simply a choice to examine the ways capitalism -- the desire to encourage and promote markets -- effected and promoted the dust bowl conditions. That's about as far as it goes. There is no homage paid to Lenin in these pages. No call for "Socialist controls." It's just history.
Book Review: Some interesting history and ideas in a very dry context Summary: 3 Stars
In the midst of the Great Depression in the 1930's, the Great Plains states faced the additional hardship of one of the worst environmental disasters commonly known as the Dust Bowl. Traditionally grassland, the area was not well-suited to the kind of extensive farming that preceeded those years. And once the natural grass which held the soil together was gone and the regular cycle of drought hit, there was nothing to stop the wind from blowing it across the land or into huge dust storms that raged for weeks on end. History usually focuses only on the social and economic effects of the Dust Bowl, but Worster adds the environment into the mix and seeks to find the root cause of this man-made disaster. He opens with a quote from Karl Marx, and although he dismisses that in his newly added Afterword as mere bravado, it seems apparent throughout his writting that he's a Marxist in his beliefs. He places the blame on American culture and Capitalism - not on the people, but the culture that encourages and drives them to create bigger farms and use machinery that more effectively tills the land. He argues that inherent to American culture is this behavior of exploiting the land for profit and only through government intervention and control can we avoid this kind of disaster in the future.
I can agree that the greed of Capitalism is laid bare in this disaster and that the land is probably not suitable to the kind of exessive use that happens there. But I'm not convinced that his Socialist suggestions (which unfortunately are not offered in a very concise or summarized way) are the answer. He seems to dismiss and ignore the inherent problems in Socialism and it's failure to provide for the people under it's rule. Capitalism may not be perfect, but it taps into mankind's natural desire to better one's position through individual efforts, while Socialism in theory recognizes the brotherhood of mankind but fails to provide for even the basic needs of the people (even the author recognizes it is this Capitalist economy that provides food for most of the world). And his suggestions for population control or that the people in that area should go back to bare subsistence farming seems far-fetched. But at least the author is exploring new ideas (or probably just regurgitating old ones from the 60's and 70's), and for that I give him credit.
But while I found many aspects of the book interesting and insightful, overall it's pretty dry reading (pun intended). The statistics become a bit boring and make the book feel excessively academic. The lectures against the evils of American culture were tiresome, and I felt he had a very condescending attitude when discussing the people affected. And I would have enjoyed a better discussion on the natural ecology of the land and it's native plants and animals, which I think would have been more inspiring. But on a personal aside, the one thing that made me realize how boring the book was becoming for me was when I kept losing my place (I'd forget to put the bookmark back where I left off). But when I picked it up again I would read for several pages before I realized that wasn't actually where I left off before. It was like it didn't matter where I read - it all kinda flowed together.
|
 |
|
|
|