ABSTRACT
Having been evicted from their homes because of incentives created by the New Deal's AGricultural ADjustment Act, sharecroppers in Arkansas formed the biracial Southern Tenant Farmers' Union (STFU) in 1934. Led by socialists and radicals, the organization ultimately claimed upward of thirty thousand members and constituted an assault on the social, economic, and racial status quo of the South. Historians have celebrated the STFU, especially its commitment to biracial cooperation and equality. This article digs beneath this carefully constructed image of the union to scrutinize the internal dynamics of the movement. It revises a number of interpretations surrounding the STFU. Although the greatest obstacles to the union's success were external, it also faced internal divisions that diminished its efficacy. The STFU's decentralized structure did not foster strong connections between leadership and membership, resulting in misunderstandings. But most importantly, the union struggled to live up to its creed of biracialism and equal treatment of African Americans. Ultimately, the STFU was less an aberration that tirelessly confronted the social and racial ills of the South and more an organization that reflected some of those ills even as it grappled with them.
Subject(s)
Crops, Agricultural , Employment , Labor Unions , Race Relations , Social Problems , Socioeconomic Factors , Black or African American/education , Black or African American/ethnology , Black or African American/history , Black or African American/legislation & jurisprudence , Black or African American/psychology , Civil Rights/economics , Civil Rights/education , Civil Rights/history , Civil Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Civil Rights/psychology , Cotton Fiber/economics , Cotton Fiber/history , Cotton Fiber/legislation & jurisprudence , Crops, Agricultural/economics , Crops, Agricultural/history , Employment/economics , Employment/history , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment/psychology , History, 20th Century , Humans , Labor Unions/economics , Labor Unions/history , Labor Unions/legislation & jurisprudence , Race Relations/history , Race Relations/legislation & jurisprudence , Race Relations/psychology , Social Conditions/economics , Social Conditions/history , Social Conditions/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Problems/economics , Social Problems/ethnology , Social Problems/history , Social Problems/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Problems/psychology , Southeastern United States/ethnologySubject(s)
Cotton Fiber , Rural Health , Rural Population , Social Class , Socioeconomic Factors , Agriculture/economics , Agriculture/education , Agriculture/history , Agriculture/legislation & jurisprudence , China/ethnology , Cotton Fiber/economics , Cotton Fiber/history , Cotton Fiber/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment/economics , Employment/history , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment/psychology , History, 15th Century , History, 16th Century , History, 17th Century , History, 18th Century , History, 19th Century , History, Medieval , Rural Health/history , Rural Population/history , Social Class/history , Textile Industry/economics , Textile Industry/education , Textile Industry/history , Textile Industry/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Cotton Fiber , Cultural Characteristics , Developing Countries , Employment , Religion , Social Change , Textile Industry , Urban Population , Clothing/economics , Clothing/history , Clothing/psychology , Cotton Fiber/economics , Cotton Fiber/history , Cotton Fiber/legislation & jurisprudence , Developing Countries/economics , Developing Countries/history , Employment/economics , Employment/history , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Employment/psychology , England/ethnology , History, 18th Century , History, 19th Century , Industry/economics , Industry/education , Industry/history , Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Mechanics , Occupational Health/history , Occupational Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Paternalism , Religion/history , Research/economics , Research/education , Research/history , Social Change/history , Socioeconomic Factors , Technology/economics , Technology/education , Technology/history , Technology/legislation & jurisprudence , Textile Industry/economics , Textile Industry/education , Textile Industry/history , Textile Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Urban Health/history , Urban Population/history , Workplace/economics , Workplace/history , Workplace/legislation & jurisprudence , Workplace/psychologyABSTRACT
Two major debates in the literature, productivity performance and the decline of the cotton industry, are joined in the analysis presented in this article on the attempts to raise productivity through the introduction of the more looms per weaver system in cotton weaving in the inter-war years. We find that the limited resultant changes were the outcome of understandable predisposition to maintain co-operative behaviour which meant that productivity enhancing schemes with long term potential were sacrificed for more modest schemes which preserved consensus in the short term.
