To me there was really one thing that stuck out while watching this movie, and that was when one of the workers tried to question the man looking for workers who came out to the camp. He was asking him if he had papers, and he was automatically labeled a troublemaker and was going to be taken away. The thing i noticed most was the fact that just because there was an abundance of workers, they could treat them however they wanted, even though they needed them. I guess this is just further demonstrating the discrimination that Brandeon talked about. I had seen this movie before and actually read the book, and i guess seeing a second time i could really just focus on what stood out to me rather than try and follow along with what was going on.

On page 299 in Dust Bowl Odyssey it says "the tractor is a symbol for a complex process of agricultural reorganization through abesntee landownership, mechanization, and corporation." If you look at the situation and see the tractor as not just a tractor, but of technological progress in general, it seems as if the displacement of workers was inevitable. Technology, whether it comes through tractors that are more efficient and can do the work of 12 men, or through hybrid fertilizers and methyl bromide that defeat the crop destroying bugs who have developed immunity to mainstream pesticides, is a good thing. But in order to see the positive benefits of technology you should never look at the people who are directly affected, because that creates a bias. Yes, American car companies have scaled back lots of workers and tried to automate things as much as they can. They also send processes overseas where the labor is cheaper. This may cause a couple thousand Americans to be out of a job, but look at the huge public benefit as a whole. EVERYONE pays less money for better cars now. EVERYONE benefits from technological progress, even if it is at the unfortunate expense of a few unluckies (i guess i made that word up).
My point is, technology is necessary...but it gets a bad rap because of the people it displaces in the short run...but in the long run, technology is the only thing that is keeping America in the position to sustain itself. With our growing population and growing dependency on resources, food, etc, efficiencies in production (technology) keep us from sliding down the back side of diminishing returns.

I think that the dynamic of the relationship between "Dust Bowl Odyssey" and "The Grapes of Wrath" is a point worth considering. I found it interesting that the article interwove points of comparison between the reality that it presents and what is depicted in "The Grapes of Wrath" throughout. Barely a paragraph could pass without referencing some point of comparison. If nothing else, this shows what an institution Steinbeck's story has become within the American consciousness. That being said, I think it is important not to discount the story that Steinbeck presents as a result of some historical inaccuracies. Granted, they came from a section of Oklahoma that was not part of the "dust bowl" and the plights of non-white workers are completely ignored; however, the importance of works like Steinbeck's is not pain-staking allegiance to small details of historical accuracy, but rather to paint a much broader picture to show others that hardships were endured. Census numbers, charts, and textbooks are quickly forgotten by all but a few individuals focusing on academia, but a work like "The Grapes of Wrath" reach all types of people for generations to come. As I read "Dust Bowl Odyssey," I felt that this idea might have been somewhat forgotten in critiquing Steinbeck's story of the Joad family.

To briefly address a point that Todd made: Yes, technology is necessary and I would argue that it is generally also good. However, it is also not without it's problems. Years of harmful pesticide use have been extremely damaging to the environment (it took some time for us to find out just how harmful DDT really is) and those cheaper cars for everybody have emitted huge amounts of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, for which we are now seeing the consequences. I think it is also important to consider that, while technology can help many people, it also has the potential to leave many people behind. Those "unluckies" represent an ever-increasing divide in this country's income gap and between the "have's" and the "have not's." I think that we should be careful in adopting overly callous treatments of the hardships for the people who technology leaves behind.

I agree Joel. People should not overlook the significance of John Steinbeck’s outlook on this time. One could say he is a part of the Progressive school in his historical depiction of the Dust Bowl. John’s major focus seemed to be the aggression of Californians toward the migratory hordes of poor farmers. The only portrayal I didn’t agree with in the movie is that the presence of young men was missing. Most of the actors were much older then early thirties. This kind of gives the impression that the people uprooted were older and already settled into domestic life. The article in “After the Fact” states that the majority of the migration population were anywhere between early twenties to early thirties.
 As far as technology goes, the absence of a clear and profitable transaction between the newly acquired tractors and the sharecroppers was horrible. Was it at all possible for a distinct assimilation into modern technology instead of as a resort to regain larger treks of land? If the advantageous New Deal would have assisted with this problem earlier, there would be no need to increase the government aid budget.

The biggest difference between the film Grapes of Wrath and the article “Dust Bowl Odyssey” was the fact that the characters and situations were portrayed very differently. Steinbeck portrays the Joad family and the other Okies as being victimized and desperate. The author of “Dust Bowl Odyssey” however, points out that the Joad family was not even from the area of the country that we now know as the dust bowl. This disregard for geography probably helped Steinbeck to romanticize and embellish his plot in order to make it more appealing to his readers. Steinbeck also leads his audience to believe that the Joads and their American peers could not find work in most cases. The After the Fact article lets the reader know that there was actually a lot more work available than Steinbeck led us to believe. Many workers turned down jobs because they felt that it was below them and more suited for minority laborers. While Grapes of Wrath will always be a story of American triumph in times of despair, it is nice to know the truth that lies behind the story.

In a continuation of ethnic discussion as related to immirgrants to California in the 1930s, there are several points I'd like to bring up.
-Race relations are fairly similar to those of slavery in that the landowners and farmers believed certain groups were 'more suitable' for some crops than others. The AFT text points out that Japanese farmers thought Philipino workers were better for rice as they were shorter in stature on average. The same view was held by Caucasians towards Mexican workers for stoop crops.
-The role of the Chinese Worker in California. Following the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 a lack of worker level labor was flowing into California as a result. I'd be interested to see the results of said act.
-The role of Mexican workers. The picture in the AFT of the women in the back of the truck reminds me of the situation that Mexican workers are still in and why. The efforts to accomadate a bilingual environment have most likely been a tool used to keep the workers from becoming educated(same type strategy as jim crow era, lack of education for african-americans to keep from moving up)

I must say I agree with David for the most part on these issues of race relations in California during the 1930’s, but I do think he left out some critical issues in his generalizations.

While I definitely would not dare compare it directly with slavery I do see David’s points in claiming the similarities. While several groups were selected for various work due to ethnicity there was not the subjugation on the mass scale that was seen in the South. I do however; believe that conditions were bad and often led to the exploitation of certain races such as the Chinese, Mexicans, and even lower-class whites.

I do not think that the Chinese Exclusion Act was as big of an impact due to David’s third bullet point. While I do think there would have been a stop in the rapid importation of labor for a brief time, I do believe that the stream of migrants and/or illegal immigrants from Mexico took their place in the lowest of the working class. This race of people is one easily subjugated by the landowners due to their lack of knowledge of customs and language. Also they were willing to work for less and could be driven off whenever the landowner saw fit. Therefore we have the tools in place that David mentioned that are very similar to the Jim Crow South.

One paragraph in particular stood out to me as being rather contradictory in the After the Fact piece "The Decision to Drop the Bomb." The author is talking about the "rational actor model" in which he argues it is not fair to use a phrase such as "Truman dropped the bomb," because the phrase "treats the actions of government and large organizations as individuals." However, not three paragraphs later, the author uses the phrase "Roosevelt's decision to launch the Manhattan project." Was it truly Roosevelt's decision alone, or was it not without the aid of "advisers, agencies, bureaus, offices, and committees?" This may only be a small point, but I couldn't help but to point out the incongruity of the passage.

I've been reading more about the New Deal and some of the social reforms, specifically regarding race relations, that Eleanor Roosevelt was either directly or indirectly responsible for. She influenced her husband to appoint a high number of African Americans to second level cabinet positions, and also to ensure they recieved 10% of welfare assistance payments. President Roosevelt, suprisingly, during this same time frame, despite how progressive his reputation has become did nothing about the 2nd class political status of blacks, and most disturbing refused to make lynching a crime (most likely to not lose favor with southern whites).

I've always found it interesting about how much influence Eleanor Roosevelt had in her husband's political career. Although their marriage was almost non existant, she was the driving force behind his presidency. In my last history class we talked alot about a town called Arthurdale in West Virginia. It was one of the New Deal projects that ulitmately failed yet the story behind it was quite fascinating. She tried to create a town from scratch and move coal miners there to become farmers and sustain their own community. This was just one of ER's plans to try to improve the nation under her husband's name.
Here is the link to the story behind it.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/arthurdale.htm

In response in part to Blaine's post about Truman's role in the decision to drop the bomb I believe that while that specific wording is in fact contrdictory, the conotation of the second quote is different than the first. Roosevelt launched the Manhattan project in haste because at that time the Germans were working hard to develop the same nuclear technology and we needed the Manhattan project or the mere precense of a bomb to secure ourselves. This is not to say that Roosevelt had the intention to drop the bomb at any point, this decision was given to the Truman administration. While it is understandable for After the Fact to attempt to treat administrations as a sum of their parts instead of individuals, it is unavoidable because any administration, no matter how influencing the advisors were, is encompassed in the name of the president, giving him the blame of a mistake or controversal decision. While the authors try to save Truman from blame for fear of individualizing an entire administration, it is unavoidable for the general public to blame the president for any problems with decision making. It comes with the job.

After reading the article "The Decision to Drop the Bomb" it definately opened my eyes towards other possible motivations for using the bomb on Japan. Obviously prior to this article and in other history classes the main motivation for dropping the bombs on Japan was to end the war. Most likely these along with the other possible motivations (intimidating Russia, following protocol, and actual weather interference)did have some effect. While reading the article, the main thing that sparked my interest was what would have happened if we had not dropped the bomb. After the world saw the utter destruction caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki it did spark a world arms race that locked the superpowers of Russia and the United States into the Cold War. I feel that after seeing the bomb in use it might have prevented any further action to this day. Although scientists knew the power of the atomic bomb, the general public for the most part probably had no idea. The public's knowledge and fear of nuclear war has definately led to at least the bomb not being used anywhere since World War II. Hopefully this will be the case for a long time to come.

I was watching The Colbert Report last night, and he had on a guest - Debra Dickerson - who was making an argument that I felt related back to some of our recent class discussions. Specifically, she was arguing that Barack Obama is not "black." Her basic reasoning behind this was that there is a significant difference between being an "African-American" and being "black" in the United States. In order to meet her definition of being "black," one must be of West African origin, descended from people who suffered under slavery, and have experienced the trials of American race relations. Because Obama's father immigrated from Kenya in 1959, he necessarily must be categorized as a different type of African American. Ignoring the specific reference to Obama in this circumstance, I am curious to know what some of you all think about this characterization. Is it necessary to meet all of her requirements to be considered "black" in the United States today? Do you need to fit some historical mold? I think that there are some interesting cultural and cultural heritage questions that she raises. Personally, I disagree with the conclusion that she comes to, but I'm curious to know how other people might react to this. Moreover, I wonder how Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. DuBois (among others) might have reacted to her argument.

Joel has posted a very interesting topic and I wish that I had watched this episode. I have had to look up Dickerson's opinion and it is in truth different than what I had expected. I had thought "black" would be a generalization of stereotypes of the race that would be portrayed in a largely negative light. On the topic of whether Obama is black or not...He is not "black" in the sense that he is descended from relatives not brought to this country in bondage and had to pull themselves out of illiteracy and destitution following emancipation. But I do believe he is African-American and is a member of said ethnic group.
I think that DuBois and Garvey would have been in disagreement with Dickerson's labeling of Obama as African African-American.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I learned about the Cold War in high school we learned it from the orthodox viewpoint. I never really agreed with this statement that the entirety of the Cold War was Russia's fault. Learning about the newer revitionist viewpoint really made me think. I agree with a lot of it, especially how the US is very economically driven. I was just kinda curious to see how everyone else learned about the Cold War.

Same Will. Everthing prior to HST 21 that I have learned about the Cold War was basically a celebration of America's superiority to the USSR. I've never believed all of it, though I am inclined to view the Soviets as the "bad guys" in that period of history. But the space race was taught pretty objectivly in my opinion at least.