Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish - The Harvest Gypsies - Wikipedia

Risolaning birinchi nashri

Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish tomonidan yozilgan bir qator maqolalar Jon Steynbek uchun komissiyada yozilgan San-Fransisko yangiliklari mehnat muhojirlarining hayoti va davrlariga e'tibor qaratish Kaliforniyaning Markaziy vodiysi.[1] 1936 yil 5–12 oktyabr kunlari har kuni nashr etilgan Shtaynbek qiyinchiliklar va g'alabalarni chuqur o'rganadi Amerikalik mehnat muhojirlari davomida Katta depressiya, o'zlarining yo'llari va hikoyalarini ekinlardan ekinzorlargacha kuzatib borishdi, chunki ular mavjud bo'lib qolishdi.

Oklaxomadan kelgan qurg'oqchilik qochqinlari yo'l bo'yida lager qilishadi. Ular paxta dalalarida ishlashga umid qilishadi. Oilada etti kishi bor. Blythe, Kaliforniya.
(fotosurat muallifi Doroteya Lange, 1936)

Maqolalar 1938 yilda risola shaklida birgalikda nashr etilgan Ularning qoni kuchli tomonidan Simon J. Lyubin Jamiyat, amerikaliklarga mehnat muhojirlarining taqdiri to'g'risida ma'lumot berishga bag'ishlangan notijorat tashkilot. Ushbu risolada ettita maqola, shuningdek Shtaynbekning yangi yozgan "To'q sariq daraxtlar ostida ochlik" epilogi va yigirma ikkita fotosurati bor edi. Doroteya Lange [2][3] Ushbu risolaning o'n ming nusxasi har biri yigirma besh tsentga sotildi.[4]

Tarixiy kontekst

Tarixiy ma'lumot

Kaliforniya shtatidagi Salinas chekkalari. Salat ishchilarining tez o'sib borishi. Oklaxomadan kelgan oila vaqtinchalik turar joyga joylashdi
- Doroteya Lange 1939 yil

1931 yildan 1939 yilgacha, qurg'oqchilik va tuproq eroziyasi bo'ylab O'rta g'arbiy va Janubiy tekisliklar Buyuk Depressiyaning doimiy tasvirlaridan birini yaratdi: Chang kosa.[5] Shu vaqt ichida bir milliondan ortiq amerikaliklar o'z vatanlaridan ko'chib ketishdi Kaliforniya. Ko'chib ketganlar soni o'sha paytdagi Kaliforniya aholisining yigirma foizidan ko'prog'iga teng edi.[6] Ishga joylashishni istagan ishchilarning ko'pligi favqulodda past ish haqiga olib keldi va bu o'z navbatida keng tarqaldi ishsizlik va qashshoqlik orasida mehnat muhojirlari. Shtaynbek tomonidan tavsiflangan ishchilar lagerlari, mehnat mojarolari va dahshatli yashash sharoitlari bu sharoitlarning natijasi edi. Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish. Kaliforniyada tug'ilgan Steynbek o'zi ushbu yangi ishlanmalarni va ularning Kaliforniya madaniyatiga ta'sirini tasvirlab berishga intildi.[7] U birinchi navbatda bu masalani o'z romani bilan hal qildi Shubhali jangda (1936), bu mavzu sifatida kombaynlarning ish tashlashini oldi.[8] Romandan ta'sirlanib, San-Fransisko yangiliklari muharriri Jorj Uest Steynbekga 1936 yilning kuzida bir qator maqolalar bilan vaziyat to'g'risida xabar berishni buyurdi.[9]

Tom Kollinz va Sanora Babbning roli

Shteynbek muhim yordam oldi Fermer xo'jaligi xavfsizligi ma'muriyati (FSA) hujjatlari, shu jumladan muhojirlar uchun federal lager menejeri Tom Kollinz tomonidan tuzilgan hisobotlar Arvin, Kaliforniya. Ushbu hisobotlarning aksariyati tomonidan tayyorlangan Sanora Babb, Kollinzda ishlagan va har kuni jurnalida u uchrashgan Dust Bowl qochqinlari haqida eslatmalar yozgan. "Babbni bilmagan holda, Kollinz yozuvchi Jon Shtaynbek bilan o'z ma'ruzalarini baham ko'rayotgan edi."[10] Shtaynbekning keyingi muvaffaqiyati G'azab uzumlari (1939) uning romanini nashr etishiga to'sqinlik qildi Kimning nomlari noma'lum, chunki Tasodifiy uy noshirlari Nyu-Yorkda bozor bir yilda bir xil mavzudagi ikkita romanni qo'llab-quvvatlay olmasligidan qo'rqdi.[11]

Tom Kollinz 1936 yilda Kern ko'chmanchilar lagerining menejeri bo'lgan, Doroteya Lange uning fotosuratini muhojir onasi bilan orqa fonda olganida.

Kollinz aholining hikoyalari, qo'shiqlari va folklorlarini o'z ichiga olgan ushbu keng intervyularni Shteynbek bilan o'rtoqlashadigan to'plamda to'plagan va u uni yozish uchun o'z yozuvlaridan foydalangan. Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish.[12]

Kelajakdagi adabiy asarlarga ta'sir

Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish Shtaynbekning markazda mehnat muhojirlari bilan birgalikda nishonlagan bir qator ishlaridan oldin, ular orasida Sichqonlar va erkaklar (1937) va G'azab uzumlari (1939).[13] Shtaynbek olimining fikriga ko'ra Robert DeMott, Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish Shteynbek aniq ma'lumot va xalq qadriyatlarini saqlash joyini taqdim etdi: "Muhojirlarni tinglash, ularning yonida ishlash, ularni tinglash va ularning muammolari bilan bo'lishish uchun son-sanoqsiz soatlardan boshlab Shtaynbek badiiylikni ta'minlaydigan inson shakli, tili va landshaftining barcha to'g'ri tafsilotlarini tortdi. verisimilitude, shuningdek, badiiy xarakteristikani jonlantiradigan dialekt, o'ziga xos tics, odatlar va imo-ishoralarning nozik nuanslari. "[14] Ushbu boy ma'lumot uning keyingi asarlarida aks etar edi, chunki Shtaynbek bu tajribadan nafaqat jonli belgilarni, balki muhojirlar lagerlarining jonli sozlamalarini ham yaratdi. Dastlab tasvirlangan bir qator tafsilotlar Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish yana paydo bo'ladi G'azab uzumlariUlar orasida Shtaynbek hukumat lagerlarining "qadr-qimmati va odob-axloqi", bolalarning keng ochligi va azob-uqubatlari va lagerlar ichida faoliyat yuritayotgan hokimiyatning adolatsizligi tasvirlari.[15][16] Hatto mashhur xulosasi G'azab uzumlari o'lik tug'ilgan bola hisobiga asos topadi Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish.[17]

Jon Steynbekning faoliyatidagi ahamiyati

Shteynbekning tergov hisobotining ta'siri Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish Olimning so'zlariga ko'ra, uning adabiy karerasini baholab bo'lmaydi Uilyam Xovart.[18] DeMott buni ta'kidlaydi Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish "Dorteya Lanjning eri bilan ligada jiddiy sharhlovchi sifatida [Shteynbekning] ishonchliligi - migrant lagerlarida va tashqarisida - Pol Teylor va Keri Makvilliams, yana ikki nufuzli va obro'li tergovchilar. " [19]

Risola ishlab chiqarish

Kaliforniyadagi mehnat doiralarining markaziy vakili Xelen Xosmer maqolalarning qayta nashr etilishi uchun javobgar edi Ularning qoni kuchli. Shteynbek serialni qayta nashr etishni boshlamadi. 1938 yilga kelib u yozuvchilikka o'tdi G'azab uzumlari to'la vaqtli va Hosmer tomonidan seriyani qayta nashr etishda ishtirok etishga ishontirishga to'g'ri keldi. Xosmer uchun tadqiqotchi bo'lib ishlagan Fermer xo'jaligi xavfsizligi ma'muriyati 1930-yillarning o'rtalarida u Doroteya Lange va iqtisodchi Pol Teylor bilan uchrashgan. U o'sha davrda Shtaynbek bilan uchrashgan va unga Xo'jalik xavfsizligi ma'muriyati uchun yig'ilgan ma'lumotlar fayllarini taqdim etgan. Xosmer FSAdan ketganidan so'ng, u ishchilar nomidan advokatlik qilish uchun Simon J. Lyubin nomli jamiyatni tashkil etdi.[20][21]

Xosmerning so'zlariga ko'ra, Shtaynbek loyihada ishtirok etishni istamagan. "U atrofida o'ralgan bu chap qanotlarning hammasidan o'limidan qo'rqardi", dedi u 1992 yilda og'zaki tarixga bergan intervyusida.[22] Oxir-oqibat, Shtaynbek Xosmerga seriyani nashr etishga ruxsat berishga rozi bo'ldi. U Doroteya Lange fotosuratlari bilan maqolalarni birlashtirdi va risolaga uning nomini berdi Ularning qoni kuchli.

Xosmer 100 ta risolaning birinchi buyurtmasini chop etdi va ularni 25 sentga sotdi, undan tushgan mablag 'Simon J. Lyubin nomidagi jamiyatga yuborildi. Shteynbek loyihadan pul olmagan. Talab tezda birinchi bosma nashrdan oshib ketdi va risola qimmatbaho tovarga aylandi. Sharqiy nashriyotlar Hosmer bilan bog'lanib, har bir risola uchun 100 AQSh dollaridan taklif qiladigan yalpiz qog'ozi nusxalarini sotib olishga harakat qilishdi.[23]

Sinopsis

I modda

1936 yil 5-oktabrda sanab o'tilgan I maqola Migrant fermasi ishchisi uchun umumiy tanishtiruvchi bo'lib xizmat qiladi, uni Shtaynbek "ochlik va ochlik tahdidi tahlikasidan hosilga, hosildan hosilga, ko'chirishdan kelib chiqqan ko'chmanchi, qashshoqlikka uchragan terimchilar guruhini almashtirish" deb ta'riflaydi. hosil ».[24] Oregonda va hatto Vashingtonda bir nechta mehnat muhojirlari bo'lishiga qaramay, ularning aksariyati Kaliforniyaga kelgan; Shteynbekning hisob-kitoblariga ko'ra, "shtatda tepada va pastda yurgan kamida 150 ming boshpanasiz muhojir bor".[25] Kaliforniyadagi migrant dehqonlarning bunday kontsentratsiyasi "Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligining o'ziga xos tabiati" bilan bog'liq bo'lib, unda yilning ko'p qismida parvarish qilish uchun atigi 20 ishchi kerak bo'lgan hosil, yig'im-terim paytida 2000 ga kerak bo'ladi. Kaliforniya davomida mehnat muhojirlarining katta oqimini talab qiladi hosil, turli xil ekinlar uchun turli vaqtlarda sodir bo'ladi. Migrantlarni yollayotganlar ularni rag'batlantiradi immigratsiya shu qadar ko'pki, "zarur bo'lganidan ikki barobar ko'proq ishchi kuchi" mavjud bo'lib, ish haqi past darajada saqlanib qoldi.[26]

Migrantlar faoliyati uchun juda muhimdir Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligi iqtisodiyoti, ammo, shu bilan birga, ular "iflos" va davlatni qo'llab-quvvatlash tizimlaridan qochib qutulganliklari uchun - boshqacha qilib aytganda, qashshoqlashganliklari uchun haqoratlanadi. "Muhojirlarga ehtiyoj bor, - deydi Shteynbek, - ular nafratlanmoqda."[27] "Qo'rg'oshinlar lagerida" yashovchi kichkina bola: "Ular bizga kerak bo'lganda bizni muhojir deb atashadi va biz ularning hosilini yig'ib olgach, biz serserdik va biz chiqib ketishimiz kerak".[28] Ammo muhojirlar qashshoqlikdan qutulishni juda istashadi. Ular yana iqtisodiy jihatdan o'zini o'zi ta'minlashdan boshqa narsani xohlamaydilar, deydi Shteynbek: "ular yig'im-terimdan yig'im-terimgacha charchagan holda harakatlanayotganda, yana bir ozgina erni egallab olish va unga joylashib to'xtash uchun bitta istak va bitta katta ehtiyoj mavjud. ularning adashishlari. " [29] Ular o'z xohishiga ko'ra emas, balki tirik qolish uchun boshqa yo'llari yo'qligi sababli sarson-sargardon.[30] Shteynbek ushbu fermerlarning fazilatlari va qadr-qimmatini doimiy ravishda ta'kidlab keladi, bu ularning hozirgi qashshoqligini yanada yomonlashtirishga xizmat qiladi.

Kern okrugidagi migrantlar oilasidan Doroteya Lange surati. "Yangi mehnat muhojiri" Shtaynbek oilasi bilan kim kelganini muhokama qiladi. 1936 yil

The Katta depressiya ning etnik tarkibidagi o'zgarishlarni ko'radi migrant dehqon. Ilgari, ko'chib kelgan dehqonlar deyarli faqat muhojirlar edi - birinchi navbatda Xitoy, keyin Yaponiya, Meksika, va Filippinlar (Shteynbek oq tanli bo'lmagan / amerikalik bo'lmagan ishchilarga nisbatan muomalani VI moddada kengroq muhokama qiladi).[31][32] Ammo Buyuk Depressiya va Dust Bowl kombinatsiyasi yangi turdagi mehnat muhojirlarini joriy qildi: oq tanli amerikaliklar oilasi, ayollar va bolalar. Ular "qishloq xo'jaligi aholisidan kelib chiqqan Oklaxoma, Nebraska va qismlari Kanzas va Texas "eng ko'p ta'sirlangan Chang kosa.[33] Shteynbek bu oilalarni birdan gullab-yashnagan - yoki hech bo'lmaganda bir marta o'zini o'zi ta'minlaydigan fermerlar deb ta'riflaydi O'rta g'arbiy, "zukko va aqlli amerikaliklar" va halol ishchilar, ular ishlagan barcha narsalarini olib qo'yish "qiziquvchan va dahshatli azoblari" ni tortib olishgan.[34] Maqola davomida Shtaynbek o'quvchisini "repressiyaning eski usullari ... ishlamaydi [chunki] bular amerikaliklar" deb ogohlantiradi.[35] Shtaynbek oq tanli bo'lmagan irqlar amerikaliklarga qaraganda yomonroq muomalaga loyiqdir, deb hisoblaydi. VII moddada Shtaynbekning amerikaliklarning oq tanli bo'lmagan migrant dehqonlar bilan muomalasi, odatda, amerikalik fermer xo'jaliklari egalari tomonidan "ochko'zlik va shafqatsizlikning sharmandali tasviri" bo'lgan degan fikr bildirilgan.[36] Shteynbek amerikalik muhojirlar boshqacha, deydi ular, albatta, yaxshiroq davolanishga loyiqligi uchun emas, balki ular (nazariy jihatdan) muhojir dehqonlar mehnat qilgan dahshatli sharoitlarga toqat qilmasliklari uchun. Shunday qilib, Shtaynbek o'z o'quvchilarini "muammoni o'zlari uchun ham, o'zimiz uchun ham ishlab chiqarishga" tayyor bo'lishga chaqiradi.[37]

II modda

1936 yil 6-oktabrda tashkil etilgan II-modda uchta oilaga e'tibor qaratib, bosqinchilar lagerlarini o'rganadi.[38] Shtaynbek "shahar axlatxonalari" qismlaridan tashkil topgan va ko'pincha daryolar qirg'oqlari va sug'orish ariqlari kabi suv havzalari yaqinida qurilgan ushbu aholi punktlarining moddiyligini tasvirlaydi. Lagerlarning yashash sharoitlariga qarab, Shtaynbek ularni qamrab olgan axloqsizlik, u erda yashovchilarning sanitariya sharoitlari va ularning uzoq muddatli istiqbollarining bexatarligini yoritadi.

Shteynbek depressiya siqilish lagerlaridagi oilalarga ularning iqtisodiy tanazzulini kuzatib, ularning qishloq xo'jaligi ishlari talab qiladigan qat'iylik va aniqlikni qanday ta'sir qilganini ta'kidlashga katta e'tibor beradi.[39] U juda muvaffaqiyatli dehqonlar bo'lgan oilani eslatib o'tadi,[40] ikkinchisi esa oziq-ovqat do'koniga ega edi.[41] Bundan tashqari, u ko'plab yangi aholida bo'lgan mo''tadil nekbinlikni ta'kidlaydi va bosqinchilarni insonparvarlashtirish uchun ishlaydi: ularning farzandlariga ta'lim berish istagi va hayotlarini belgilaydigan yaqinlaridan ayrilish xayrixohlikni keltirib chiqaradi. "Nopoklik" bilan[42] va to'yib ovqatlanmaslik lagerlar, o'lim sabablari Shteynbek uchun tushunarli - va u maqsadiga ko'ra, bosqinchilarga.[43]

Buyuk depressiya sinflar o'rtasidagi tafovutlarni bekor qilmadi, ammo har xil oilalar turli darajadagi sanitariya va farovonlikda yashash imkoniyatiga ega bo'lishdi. Shteynbek, "Yaxshi kiyingan bolalar" dan olinadigan bezorilikdan charchagan bolalari maktabga borishdan bosh tortgan oilani qayd etdi.[44] Bunday xatti-harakatlar bilan shug'ullanish uchun o'qituvchilarning qo'llarida juda ko'p narsa bor edi va yaxshi ta'minlangan o'quvchilarning ota-onalari gigienasi yomon bo'lgan uy xo'jaliklarining kasalliklari maktablarga kirishini istamadilar. Ammo, depressiya sinf tuzilmalarini qayta yo'naltirdi. O'rta sinf kambag'al edi,[45] va quyi sinf yanada qashshoq edi.[46] Shtaynbekning so'zlariga ko'ra, quyi sinfning o'sishi uchun ma'lum bir muqarrarlik mavjud edi; hamma narsadan voz kechgan quyi sinfdagi odamga murojaat qilib, u shunday yozadi: "Bu olti oy ichida chodirda yashovchi shunday bo'ladi; tepasida tomi ko'tarilgan qog'ozli uyda bir yil keyin bo'ladi" qadr-qimmatini yo'qotganidan va ruhini yo'qotib qo'ygandan so'ng, uning uyi yuvilib ketgan va bolalari kasal bo'lgan yoki o'lgan. "[47]

Shteynbek lagerning iqtisodiy umidsizligini kattaroq ijtimoiy sharoitga etkazadi. U aholi punktlaridan ma'lumotlarni olib, faqat ma'lumotlarni to'plash uchun olib borgan ijtimoiy xodimlar va tadqiqotchilarni eslatib o'tadi - hatto bu umidsiz edi, chunki "Bu juda tez-tez amalga oshirilgan, shuning uchun kam narsa kelmagan".[48] Kasallik yana bir kuch edi va epidemiyalarni "qishloq vrachlari" "zararkunandalar uyida" davolashlari mumkin edi.[49] Biroq, Shtaynbek «Mamlakat shifoxonasida joy yo'q qizamiq, parotit, [va] ko'k yo'tal, "bu bolalar uchun katta xavf tug'dirdi.[50] Vaziyatni yomonlashtiradigan darajada, kambag'allar, odatda, ularga xizmat ko'rsatish uchun mavjud bo'lgan bepul klinikalardan qanday foydalanishni bilmaydilar va sog'liqni saqlash xizmatlarini olib boruvchi organlar bilan o'zaro munosabatlarga shubha bilan qarashadi.[51]

Pirovardida, Shtaynbek o'zining kuzatuvlarining tor doirasini mavjudligining katta miqyosida kontekstualizatsiya qiladi. Uning ta'kidlashicha, "Bu bosqinchilar lageri. Ba'zilari biroz yaxshiroq, boshqalari ancha yomonroq", deb ta'kidlab, u uchta oilani tasvirlab berganida: "Ba'zi lagerlarda bu kabi uch yuzga yaqin oila bor".[52] U hamdardlik iltimosi bilan II moddani yopadi: agar ba'zi bosqinchilar o'g'irlik qilsalar yoki nisbatan badavlat kishilarga nisbatan noroziligini bildira boshlasalar, "buning sababini ularning kelib chiqishi yoki xarakteridagi zaiflik tendentsiyasida izlash kerak emas. "[53] Eng muhimi, bosqinchilar, u ta'kidlaganidek, inson tushunchasiga loyiq insonlardir.

III modda

1936 yil 7-oktabrga belgilangan Shteynbekning uchinchi maqolasida yirik fermer xo'jaliklari mehnat muhojirlari hayoti ustidan to'liq nazoratni saqlab qolish uchun yaratgan zulm tizimi o'rganilgan. Shteynbek avval zulm uchun mas'ul bo'lgan yirik fermer xo'jaliklari va ko'pincha muhojirlarga nisbatan to'g'ri munosabatda bo'lgan kichik fermer xo'jaliklari o'rtasida yonma-yon joylashadi.[54] Muallif kichik fermer xo'jaliklari ko'pincha xo'jalik birlashmasi tomonidan nazorat qilinadigan banklar oldidagi qarzdorligi sababli ishchi kuchi masalasida katta fermer xo'jaliklari tomoniga o'tishga majbur bo'lishini ta'kidlamoqda. Yirik fermer xo'jaliklarining talablarini e'tiborsiz qoldirish fermerlarning kichik fermer xo'jaliklarini olib qo'yishiga olib kelishi mumkin.

Shteynbek keyinchalik Fermerlar assotsiatsiyasining Kaliforniyadagi ishchi kuchi ustidan deyarli to'la nazoratini va mehnat muhojirlari uchun ushbu nazoratni yaratgan dahshatli moliyaviy sharoitlarni tushuntiradi. Shteynbekning ta'kidlashicha, yirik fermer xo'jaliklarida ishlash uchun ishchilar maoshlarining bir qismini deyarli yo'qotib, ijara haqini to'lashga rozi bo'lishlari kerak.[55] Bundan tashqari, uy-joy mehnat muhojiri butun oilasiga to'g'ri keladigan bir xonali shlaklardan iborat bo'lib, gilamsiz, to'shaksiz, suvsiz va hojatxonasiz. Buning o'rniga, odatda ko'chaning bir qismida septik tank mavjud. Ish sharoitlari ayniqsa charchatadi. Mehnatkashlar muhojirlarning hosilni yig'ish sur'atini saqlab turadigan "paspas" bilan ishlaydi. Agar mehnat muhojiri ortda qolsa, u ishdan bo'shatiladi. Shteynbek, shuningdek, yirik fermer xo'jaliklarida dam olish yoki ko'ngil ochish uchun qulayliklar yo'qligini tushuntiradi.

Keyin Shteynbek mehnat muhojirlarining kasaba uyushmalariga to'sqinlik qiladigan deputatlar tizimini tavsiflaydi. Deputatlar - muhojirlarni navbatda ushlab turadigan qurollangan xodimlar. Shteynbek "ofitserga qarshilik ko'rsatish" ko'pincha o'q otishga olib keladi deb tushuntiradi. Deputatlar ishchilarni "o'zlarini pastroq va o'ziga ishonchsiz" his qilishlari uchun o'qitilgan.[56] Deputatlar ham mumkin bo'lgan kasaba uyushmalarining oldini olish uchun barcha yig'ilishlarni tarqatadilar. Deputatlar qo'lidagi bu doimiy tanazzul ba'zan g'alayonlarga olib keladi.[57]Shteynbek maqolani yirik fermer xo'jaliklari juda oz o'zgarishni istashini va "yo'llar juda qimmat" ekanligini tushuntirish bilan yakunlaydi.

IV modda

1936 yil 8 oktyabrda tashkil etilgan ushbu maqola. Tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan lagerlarga qaratilgan Ko'chib o'tishni boshqarish dan qochqinlar uchun markaz sifatida Chang kosa. Shteynbek Arvindagi (hozirda shunday nomlangan) ikkita lagerning xususiyatlarini batafsil bayon qildi Weedpatch ) va Marysvill. Har bir lager 200 ga yaqin oilani birlashtirgan.[58] Ushbu lagerlardagi hayotda qatnashish uchun, dehqonlar haftasiga ikki soatlik ishlarida lagerni tozalashda yordam berishgan.

Shteynbek ushbu lagerlarning yangiliklarini yuqori baholab, "Natija kutilganidan ham ko'proq bo'ldi. Birinchidan, rahbariyatning maqsadi muhojirlardan toqat qilib bo'lmaydigan rejimlari tomonidan quvib chiqarilgan qadr-qimmat va odobni tiklash edi. hayot ".[59] Shuningdek, u ushbu lagerlarning tashkil etilishi Amerika ideallarini qanday rivojlantirganligini nishonladi va "lagerlardagi odamlar o'zlarini boshqarishga da'vat etilayotganini va ular oddiy va ishchan demokratiya bilan javob berishdi" deb tushuntirdi.[60] Shtaynbek, shuningdek, o'z qadr-qimmati tiklanganligi va "o'zlariga xos narsaga ega bo'lish hissi" bilan, bu odamlar yaxshiroq ishchilar "degan fikrni ilgari surmoqda.[61]

Ushbu lagerlarda yashovchi ishchilar va ularning oilalarini kuzatgan Shteynbekning ta'kidlashicha, ko'p odamlar "tiklangan qadr-qimmatga ega bo'lishi mumkin bo'lgan qarashning barqarorligi va o'ziga bo'lgan ishonchni" namoyish etishgan. Va u asosiy qadr-qimmatning tiklanishini "migrantning jamiyatdagi yangi mavqei" bilan bog'laydi.[62] Endi nafratlanadigan va himoyasiz shaxs emas, ushbu lagerlarda yashovchilar kommunal hayotning faol a'zolariga aylantirildi. Ko'plab ayollar "Yaxshi qo'shnilar" deb nomlangan tashkilotda ishtirok etishdi, bolalar bog'chasini kuzatdilar va lager a'zolari uchun kiyim-kechak ishlab chiqarish uchun tikuvchilik loyihalarini amalga oshirdilar. Shteynbek lagerga qanday yangi oila qo'shilsa, ularni darhol "Yaxshi qo'shnilar" a'zolari kutib olishlari va lager amaliyoti to'g'risida ko'rsatma berishlarini tasvirlaydi. Lager aholisi kelayotgan oilada etishmasligi mumkin bo'lgan resurslarni to'plash uchun birlashadilar va oilaning har qanday kasal a'zolari ham qatnashadilar.[63]

Shteynbek ushbu lagerlar foydasiga yana bir fikr - lager a'zolarining yaxshi xulq-atvori, faoliyatining dastlabki yillarida na lagerga politsiya kerak bo'lganligini ta'kidladi.[64]

V modda

1936 yil 9-oktabrdagi V-moddada Shteynbek muhojirlar oilasining yordam olish uchun kurashlarini va Kaliforniyaning ularga yordam berolmaganligini tasvirlaydi. Muhojir oila hech qachon to'liq ish bilan ta'minlanmaydi, shuning uchun ular doimo yordamga muhtoj. Ular ish uchun mavsumiy sayohat qilishlari kerakligi sababli, ular hech qachon doimiy yashash joyiga ega emaslar va yordam so'rab murojaat qilishda doimo qiyinchiliklarga duch kelishadi.[65]

Ish topish uchun doimiy ravishda sayohat qilish zarurati migrantlar oilasiga kirish bilan bog'liq qo'shimcha muammolarni keltirib chiqaradi. Oilaning yashashi uchun zarur bo'lgan imtiyozlarni faqat doimiy yashash joyida olish mumkin, ammo migrantlar oilasi och qolish uchun kamroq vaqtni to'xtata olmaydi. Ushbu manbalardan eng ko'p talab qilinadigani, ammo ulardan foydalanish imkoni yo'q - shifoxonalar.

Shteynbek sobiq Oklaxoma shtatidagi oilaviy tibbiy kurashlarni kuzatib boradi, bu tibbiy yordam va boshqa imkoniyatlarning mavjud emasligini ko'rsatmoqda. ijtimoiy xizmatlar mehnat migrantlari uchun. Oila ellik yoshli otasi, qirq besh yoshli onasi, ikkita o'g'li, o'n besh va o'n ikkitasi va olti yoshli qizidan iborat bo'lib, apelsin yig'ishni boshlagan holda o'zlarining yuk mashinalarida Kaliforniyaga ketmoqdalar.

Ularning yuk mashinalari buzilib ketganda, uni tuzatish dastlabki daromadlarining uchdan bir qismini sarf qiladi. Bu tibbiy muammolarni to'lash uchun ozgina mablag 'qoldiradi - otaning to'pig'i va qizining qizamig'i.[66] Otasi ishsiz qolgani sababli, bolalar asosiy daromadga aylanishadi. O'n ikki yoshli bola sotish uchun jezdan yasalgan buyumlarni o'g'irlaydi va otasi uni qamoqdan qutqarish uchun shaharga yurishi kerak. Bu uning to'pig'ini yomonlashtiradi, uning ishiga qaytishini kechiktiradi.

Puldan oila yordam uchun murojaat qiladi. Ular doimiy yashash joylari bo'lmaganligi sababli, ular huquqiga ega emasligi haqida xabar berishadi. Oilaning qo'shnilari, bundan ham yaxshiroq emas, imkoni boricha ovqat bilan ta'minlaydilar, ammo bu shunchaki cho'zilib ketadi.

Oilaning asosiy daromadini topadigan o'n besh yoshli bola appenditsit bilan kasallanganda, oila eng katta qiyinchiliklarga duch keladi. Hali ham oqsoq bo'lgan ota kasalxonadan yordam so'raydi, ammo shahar aholisi barcha yotoqlarni egallaydi. Shteynbekning yozishicha, otaning mehnat muhojirlari maqomi kasalxona mulozimlari vaziyatning og'irligini tortib ololmasliklariga olib keladi. O'g'li hushidan ketib qoladi va uning yorilishi tufayli vafot etishidan oldin oila shifokorga murojaat qila olmaydi.

Oila o'g'ilning dafn marosimini to'lash uchun yuk mashinasini, ishga borishga ketadigan vositalarini sotadi. Ota yomon to'pig'i bilan ishlashga qaytadi, qo'shnilarga yo'llanmalar uchun pul to'laydi, ammo tez orada uning ishi cheklanib, daromad kamayadi. To‘yib ovqatlanmagan qizi yana kasal bo‘lib qoladi va otasi xususiy shifokorga murojaat qiladi. U oldindan to'lashi kerak, va ikki kunlik ish haqini to'lashni talab qilgandan so'ng, ishini yo'qotadi va qarzga botadi.

Shtaynbek ushbu oilaning ishidan foydalanadi, chunki u minglab turlar qatoriga kiradi. Uning ta'kidlashicha, oila, boshqalar singari, yordam olishi mumkin edi, ammo uni olish uchun mablag 'yo'q edi. Shteynbek Kaliforniyaning mehnat muhojirlari bilan qanday munosabatda bo'lishiga oid uchta tanqidni ishlab chiqadi. Birinchidan, davlat bunday muammolarning mavjudligini rad etdi, ikkinchidan, okruglar ushbu muammolar mavjudligini tan olganda, ishchilar vaqtinchalik bo'lgani uchun javobgarlikni rad etdilar. Va nihoyat, Shtaynbek "tibbiyot to'pi o'yini" deb ataganida, mehnat muhojirlarini almashtirish uchun tumanlar o'z chegaralarini doimiy ravishda o'zgartirib turdilar.[67]

Umumiy muammo, deb yozadi Shteynbek, bevosita iqtisodiyotga alohida e'tibor berish va kuchli ishchi kuchining uzoq muddatli qiymatini tan ololmaslik. U hosildorlikni mehnat muhojirlarining sog'lig'i bilan bog'lamaslikni bir nechta okruglarda tarqalgan ankilomateriya muammosiga qarab tasvirlaydi. Jabrlanganlarni ajratish yoki davolash g'oyalari e'tibordan chetda qoldirildi va yuqtirganlar parazitlar tarqaladigan boshqa tumanlarga yuborildi.

VI modda

1936 yil 10-oktyabrda sanab o'tilgan VI-modda Shtaynbekning oq tanli bo'lmagan / amerikalik bo'lmagan migrant fermer xo'jaliklari ishchilariga nisbatan an'anaviy muomalasiga bag'ishlangan bo'lib, Shtaynbek buni "terrorizm, isrofgarchilik va ochlik" bilan tavsiflaydi.[68] Shteynbekning birinchi jumlasida hammasi aytilgan: "Kaliforniyani chet eldan ishchi kuchini olib kirish va davolash tarixi - bu ochko'zlik va shafqatsizlikning sharmandali rasmidir."[69] Immigrantlarning mehnati oq amerikaliklarning mehnatidan ikki sababga ko'ra yuqori baholandi: immigrantlar kam maosh olishdi va yomon munosabatga toqat qilishdi. Shteynbek barcha etti maqola davomida ta'kidlaganidek, "mag'rurlik va o'z-o'zini hurmat qilish" bilan quvvatlangan oq tanli amerikaliklar kam ish haqi va muhojir ishchilar tomonidan qabul qilingan dahshatli mehnat sharoitlarini qabul qilishni xohlamadilar.[70]

Faqatgina moliyaviy ma'noda "Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligining tabiati dehqon xo'jaligi erlarining egalarini peon mehnatiga chaqirdi", Shtaynbek bu holatni yomon ko'rdi.[71] Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligining keng ko'lami va shart-sharoitlari, oq tanli amerikaliklar o'zlarining qadr-qimmatiga loyiq emas deb hisoblaydigan arzon ish kuchini talab qildi. Shteynbekning yozishicha, "depressiya bilan fermerlarning ish haqi shtatning janubiy qismida shu qadar past darajaga tushib ketdiki, ularda oq mehnat mavjud bo'lolmadi".[72] Fermer xo'jaliklari egalari shunchaki ko'proq foyda olishdi, chunki muhojir ishchilar kam ish haqini qabul qildilar; shu sababli, ular oq tanli amerikaliklarga adolatli ish haqi to'lashga urinishdan ko'ra, doimiy ravishda chet eldan ishchi kuchini qidirmoqdalar.

Xorijiy ishchi kuchiga bo'lgan istak, pul daromadidan ko'proq sabab bo'ldi. Oq mardikorlardan farqli o'laroq, muhojirlarni "ular kerak bo'lmagan paytda shuncha axlat bilan muomala qilishlari mumkin edi", chunki deportatsiya xavfi har doim ularning boshlarida osilgan edi.[73] Shtaynbek ta'riflagan "chet el pionlariga qarshi takomillashtirilgan qadimgi qo'rqitish va ochlik usullari" hech qachon oq tanli ishchilarga toqat qilolmaydi.[74] Bundan tashqari, ushbu ishchilar Amerika fuqarolari bo'lmaganligi sababli, ular Amerika mehnat qonunlari bilan himoyalanmagan.[75] Shunday qilib, muhojir mardikorlarni ish bilan ta'minlash afzalligi doimiy bo'lib, bunday mardikorlarga ehtiyoj, immigratsiya, irqchilik va quvg'inlar davri takrorlanib turardi.[76]

"Katta jinoyatchilar tomonidan yo'l qo'yilmaydigan bitta jinoyat", demak, bu mehnatni tashkil etish harakati.[77] "Ular [ishchilar] ... o'zlarini himoya qilish uchun uyushtirishga harakat qilib, ... kechirilmas ishni qilishadi".[78] Bir paytlar ishchilar zo'ravonlikdan charchab, qarshilik ko'rsatishni boshladilar, demak, buyuk er egalari ularga bundan ortiq foydasi yo'q, chunki ular endi yollangan "pion ishchilari" emaslar.[79] Shteynbekning aytishicha, muhojir ishchilarga qarshi chiqarilgan "odatdagi terrorizm" ko'p jihatdan "ularning tashkilotlari" bilan bog'liq.[80]

Immigrant dehqonlarning birinchi yirik guruhi xitoyliklar edi, ular dastlab "qit'alararo temir yo'llarni qurish uchun arzon ishchi kuchi sifatida jalb qilingan", keyinchalik ular dehqonchilikka o'tishga majbur bo'lishgan.[81] Ular amerikalik ishchilar tomonidan zudlik bilan haqoratlanishdi, chunki "xitoyliklarning an'anaviy turmush darajasi juda past bo'lganligi sababli, oq mehnat unga raqobatlasha olmas edi".[82] Yuqoridan pastga va pastdan yuqoriga harakatlarning kombinatsiyasi - immigratsiya to'g'risidagi qonunlar chegaralarni yopish va xitoylik mardikorlarga qarshi tartibsizliklar - oxir-oqibat "xitoyliklarni daladan haydab yubordi" va to'ldirish kerak bo'lgan arzon ishchi kuchini bo'sh qoldirdi.[83]

Keyingi guruh yaponlar edi va ular o'zlaridan oldingi xitoylik mardikorlar kabi taqdirga duch kelishdi. "Past darajadagi turmush darajasi ... ularga mol-mulk to'plash imkonini berdi, shu bilan birga ular oq mehnat ishlarini olib bordilar."[84] Shunga qaramay, ular dalalardan va umuman mamlakatdan quvib chiqarildi.

Yaponiyadan keyin meksikaliklar paydo bo'ldi va yana ularning kam ish haqini qabul qilishi oq tanli ishchilarning hayotiga tahdid tug'dirdi. Irqiy hujumlar va immigratsiya to'g'risidagi qonunlarni o'zgartirishning odatiy taktikalaridan tashqari, Meksikaning ketgan fuqarolarini vataniga qaytarish istagi ko'plab meksikalik ishchilarni Kaliforniyani tark etib, o'z vataniga qaytishga majbur qildi.

Shteynbek muhokama qiladigan so'nggi guruh - "oqsoqollar" bilan kelishganlarida jiddiy muammolarga olib kelgan "asosan yosh, erkak va yolg'iz" filippinliklar. Irqlararo nikohga ruxsat berilmagan bo'lsa-da, nikohdan tashqari ishlar sodir bo'ldi va "axloqsizlik bilan obro'-e'tibor qozondi ... [va] ularga qarshi qaratilgan ko'plab irqiy tartibsizliklar".[85] Meksikalik mardikorlar singari, Filippin orollari ham o'z yigitlarining qaytib kelishini rag'batlantirishda AQShga yordam berishdi. Ular hali ham Kaliforniyada istiqomat qilishganida, ular ko'pincha o'zlarining resurslarini birlashtirgan, asbob-uskunalar va oziq-ovqat mahsulotlarini birgalikda ishlatgan bir necha yigitlarning "oilalarida" yashaganlar.[86]

Shteynbek yozgan paytda, "chet ellik pion mehnatining tobora kamayib borayotgan to'lqinlari Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligini o'z xalqimiz rahm-shafqatiga topshirmoqda".[87] "Kaliforniyada chet ellik ishchilar kamayib bormoqda," deb yozadi Shteynbek va kelajakdagi fermer xo'jaliklari oq tanli va amerikalik bo'lishi kerak.[88] Garchi er egalari va fermer xo'jaliklari egalari "yangi oq mehnat muhojirlarini" chet ellik ishchilarga qarshi uyushtirgan terrorizmga bo'ysundirishga harakat qila boshlagan bo'lsalar-da, Shteynbek "ular omadli bo'lmaydi" deb bashorat qilmoqda, chunki oq tanli amerikaliklar "juda ko'p turmush darajasini talab qiladilar. xorijiy "arzon ishchi kuchi" berilganidan yuqori. "[89] Shunga qaramay, Shtaynbek o'zlarining da'volarini yana bir bor ta'kidlaydilar: "mag'rurlik va o'z-o'zini hurmat qilish" xususiyatiga ega bo'lgan amerikalik oq mardikorlar kam ish haqi va chet ellik ishchilar qabul qilishdan boshqa iloji bo'lmagan dahshatli sharoitlarga toqat qilmaydilar.[90] Shunday qilib, Shteynbek o'zining ettinchi va so'nggi maqolasi uchun zamin yaratadi, Kaliforniya bilan muomala qilayotgan yangi muhojirlarga javoban sharoit qanday o'zgarishi kerakligi haqida risola.

VII modda

1936 yil 12-oktabrdagi VII moddada muammoga bag'ishlangan mehnat muhojirlari. Shteynbek "migrantlar muammosi" ga ularga bog'liq bo'lgan Kaliforniya qishloq xo'jaligi uchun, shuningdek, insonparvarlik nuqtai nazaridan gumanitar sabablarga ko'ra hal qilinishi kerakligini aytmoqda. yashash sharoitlari mehnat migrantlarining.[91] Muhojirlar ko'chirilgan dehqonlar bo'lganligi sababli, ularni fermer xo'jaliklaridan chetlatmaslik kerak, deb ta'kidlaydi va federal hukumat ushbu oilalarga ijaraga berish yoki sotish uchun er ajratishni taklif qiladi.

Yordamchi dehqonchilik mehnat muhojirlariga ehtiyoj sezilmaganda - oilalarga dam olish mavsumida omon qolish uchun etarlicha oziq-ovqatga ega bo'lishlari va yanada barqaror yashash tarziga ega bo'lishlari, maktabga qaytadigan bolalar va ushbu ko'chib kelgan migrantlar orasida jamoalar paydo bo'lishi.[92] Bundan tashqari, ushbu jamoalar tibbiy yordamga, umumiy qishloq xo'jaligi asbob-uskunalariga, o'zini o'zi boshqarishga va "odamlarga ilmiy dehqonchilikka ko'rsatma berish uchun o'qitilgan qishloq xo'jaligi mutaxassislariga" ega bo'lishlari mumkin edi.[93]

Shteynbek federal hukumat bunday loyihaning xarajatlarini qoplashi kerakligini ta'kidlab, "Bunday tashabbuslar narxi hozirgi paytda ko'z yosh oqizuvchi gaz, pulemyot va o'q-dorilar va sheriflar o'rinbosarlari uchun sarflanadigan mablag'dan katta bo'lmasligini" ta'kidladi. fermer xo'jaliklari egalari va mehnat muhojirlari o'rtasidagi zamonaviy mehnat ziddiyatiga murojaat qilish.[94] Bunga qo'shimcha ravishda, u ishchilar va mehnat jamoalari ishchilarni ish haqini belgilashda va reklama berishda juda katta rol o'ynashi kerak, bu juda ko'p ishchilar uchun juda kam ishchilar uchun kurash olib boradigan "katta tartibsiz oltin shoshilinchligi" ni oldini olish uchun va past ish haqi. mehnatning bunday ortiqcha miqdoridan kelib chiqadi.[95]

Uyushgan qishloq xo'jaligi mehnati qishloq xo'jaligi sanoatini yo'q qiladi, deb da'vo qilgan tanqidchilarga Shtaynbek xuddi shu dalil sanoat mehnat tashkilotiga qarshi ishlatilganiga qaramay, sanoat omon qolganligini ta'kidlamoqda.[96] Biroq, u "hushyor terrorizmni" kechirmaydi va federal hukumatni hushyorlarni ta'qib qilish va ta'qib qilishga undaydi.[97] U muhojirlarning shikoyatlarini ko'rib chiqadi va quyidagi so'zlar bilan yakunlanadi: “Ular eng yuqori turdagi fuqarolar bo'lishi mumkin yoki ular azob-uqubat va o'zlariga kerak bo'lgan narsani olish uchun nafrat qo'zg'atadigan armiya bo'lishi mumkin. Ularning kelajakdagi muolajalari qaysi kursni o'tashga majbur bo'lishiga bog'liq. " [98]

Asosiy mavzular

Mehnat va qarshilik

1930-yillarda Kaliforniyadagi mehnat bozoriga murojaat qilishda Shteynbek mehnat muhojirlari va tijorat qishloq xo'jaligi o'rtasidagi ziddiyatni tasvirlaydi. Uning ta'kidlashicha, Kaliforniyaning qishloq xo'jaligi sektori O'rta G'arbdan farq qiladi, chunki uning yuqori darajadagi tijoratlashtirish va markazlashtirish darajasi.[99] Kaliforniyaning yirik fermer xo'jaliklari yuqori darajada tashkil etilgan va banklar, ishbilarmonlar va boy siyosatchilar tomonidan nazorat qilinadi.[100] Ishchilar, odatda, ushbu fermer xo'jaliklarida yaxshi saqlanmagan kichik uylarda yashash uchun yuqori ijara haqini to'laydilar. Ushbu fermer xo'jaliklarining menejerlari o'z ishchilari ustidan suddan tashqari hokimiyatni amalga oshiradilar; Fermer xo'jaligining deputatlari mulk to'g'risidagi qonunni bajaradilar, ba'zan "ofitserga qarshilik ko'rsatgan" ishchilarni otib tashladilar.[101] Shteynbek shuni ko'rsatadiki, o'ldirilgan muhojirlarning ko'pligi bu deputatlar ishlayotgan beparvolikdan dalolat beradi.[102]

Shteynbekning ta'kidlashicha, ushbu yirik fermer xo'jaliklaridagi qattiq intizom chorvachilik menejerlari qo'rqadigan har qanday mehnat tashkilotining oldini olishga qaratilgan. Uning ta'kidlashicha, "xo'jayinning xo'jayiniga bo'lgan munosabati nafrat va gumonga asoslangan, uning usuli - deputatlarining qurollariga tahdid".[103] Har qanday muvaffaqiyatli mehnat tashkiloti yirik fermer xo'jaliklari egalarini yashash va mehnat sharoitlarini yaxshiroq ta'minlashga majbur qiladi, bu esa o'z navbatida foyda chegaralarini kamaytiradi.

Shteynbek o'z maqolalari davomida mehnat muhojirlarining ahvoliga nisbatan juda xayrixoh pozitsiyani egallaydi. Uning fikri ko'plab mehnat muhojirlarining hayotini tavsiflovchi shafqatsizlik va qashshoqlik tomonidan aniq ma'lum qilingan. Biroq, uning qarashlari 1930-yillarda Amerika G'arbida ishchi kuchining o'zgarishi vaqtinchalik aberatsiya emas, aksincha qaytarib bo'lmaydigan paradigma o'zgarishi degan markaziy taxminga asoslanib ko'rinadi.[104] Natijada, Shteynbek ularni Kaliforniya shtati tarkibiga kiritishni talab qilmoqda. Ularning davlat va uning mavjud aholisi tomonidan qabul qilinishi barcha tomonlarga foyda keltiradi. In conclusion, Steinbeck notes that the poor workers can be “citizens of the highest type, or they can be an army driven by suffering and hatred to take what they need.”[105] In Steinbeck's opinion, a peaceful, constructive resolution to the conflict between laborer and employer is needed to forestall a more destructive resolution wrought by the laborers alone.

Sog'liqni saqlash

Article II, in particular, details the dire consequences of poor sanitation of Hoovervilles, or "squatter camps" as Steinbeck refers to the shantytowns in the California valley. One of the three families he writes about had recently suffered the loss of one child; a four-year-old boy had been sick, poorly nourished and appeared feverish, then, "one night he went into convulsions and died."

Steinbeck also attacks the lack of basic preventative care among those in the "squatter camp" shantytowns. Part and parcel of his argument about the dignity of the laborers—and the way it is disregarded by local and national authorities—is his observation that, while "an epidemic" is a way of "getting [the attention]" of medical authorities, local doctors care little for malnutrition or dysentery.[106] There is care for these easily treatable conditions, Steinbeck argues, but "these people do not know how to get the aid and they do not get it." What efforts there are to improve the lot of the workers are half-hearted, and there is no effort exhausted on outreach or civil society measures.

Describing another family, Steinbeck highlighted a three-year-old who had "a gunny sack tied about his middle for clothing. He has the swollen belly caused by malnutrition. [Fruit flies] try to get at the mucous in the eye-corners. This child seems to have the reactions of a baby much younger. The first year he had a little milk, but he has had none since. He will die in a very short time." This account of the child is grim but realistically so given the circumstances of living in Hoovervilles, suffering from poor hygiene and lack of food.

Pregnant migrant woman living in a squatter camp in Kern County, CA.
- Dorothea Lange 1936

Pregnancy was extremely difficult as most mothers were malnourished. Steinbeck straightforwardly writes, "The problem of childbirth among the migrants is among the most terrible." [107] While some women were able to conceive, most could not produce breastmilk, and as they continued to labor late in the pregnancy, miscarriages were increasingly common. In his discussion of challenges to normal pregnancy in Article V, he tells the poignant story of a woman who had multiple miscarriages, due to work accidents, sickness, and malnutrition. Steinbeck reports that she felt ashamed of not being able to conceive and bring healthy babies into the world, suggesting a way in which the Great Depression challenged femininity by compromising a female's ability to raise a healthy family.

Qadr

In detailing several of the narratives of migrant workers and their families, Steinbeck raises the concept of dignity, or pride, and how it wavered and diminished depending on what hardships were suffered and what level of poverty was reached. Article II showcases the stories of several families, and the mention of dignity and even spirit is present with every one. The first family is said to have put the children in school at every stop they made, even if for just a month at time, something that spoke to their pride. The father's attempt to craft a decent toilet by “digging a hole in the ground near his paper house and surrounding it with an old piece of burlap”[108] is regarded by Steinbeck as a sign that “his spirit and decency and his sense of his own dignity have not been quite wiped out.”[109]

As Steinbeck progresses down the classes of laborers and the state of their families, the dignity wanes as well. This is reflected in the unwillingness of the children to show their faces at school where they are ridiculed for their ragged clothing. It is also shown in the dullness that Steinbeck describes has settled over families who have lost young ones to malnutrition or other such diseases. Steinbeck describes this family to be in the middle class of the squatters’ camp. At the lower classes, Steinbeck declares, “Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies.”[110]

In Article IV, the surfacing of camps developed by the Ko'chib o'tishni boshqarish act not only as a provider of basic goods and living standards for the migrant workers and families, but also as a place for the migrants to regain their dignity as members of a functioning society. Because one of the three conditions of staying in the camp was to help to maintain the cleanliness of the camp,[111] the migrant workers were given a responsibility that allowed them to contribute as members of a functioning community. Furthermore, the camp afforded them civilized amenities such as “water, toilet paper, and medical supplies,”[112] which allowed for bathing and cleanliness of dress. Steinbeck states, “From the first, it was the intent of the management to restore the dignity and decency that had been kicked out of the migrants by their intolerant mode of life.”[113] The Harvest Furthermore, within the camps many of the families took to growing their own vegetables, which Steinbeck saw as an uplifting sense of ownership to “have something of his own growing.”[114]

Race among migrant laborers

Steinbeck's series of articles focuses primarily on American migrant laborers with Western and Northern European heritage[115] who he describes as "resourceful and intelligent Americans...gypsies by force of circumstances." These are men and women, as he describes them, used to democracy, self-government, and self-reliance. He argues that their fate is a distinct misfortune, and the social abuse they suffer as migrant workers does not befit their history.

While the focus is on those white American migrants, Steinbeck also describes the lot of foreign migrants and notes how they are "ostracized and segregated and herded about."[116] Article VI describes in the most detail their lives. The Chinese immigrants are notable for their low standard of living, and how their ability to live on very little led to their being driven from the fields by white laborers dissatisfied with the competition they created.[117] He remarks upon their ability to accumulate property as notable given its contrast to the property-less white migrant. Steinbeck also mentions the presence of anti-Chinese immigration policy and its effect on keeping the numbers of Chinese working in the fields low. He then moves to a discussion of Japanese workers and the discrimination they faced with the rise of "sariq xavf " literature. Also perceived as a threat to white labor, they too were eventually forced from the fields.[118]

Mexicans bound for the Imperial Valley to harvest peas near Bakersfield, California
- Dorothea Lange 1936

The non-American group that occupies the bulk of Steinbeck's section on foreign labor is the Mexicans. Steinbeck attributes their presence in California's fields to the "cry for peon labor" issued by farm owners seeking to maximize profits and minimize costs.[119] Again, like with the Chinese, Steinbeck points out their standard of living and ability to subsist on depressed wages that made them preferable to white labor, particularly with the rise of intensive farming practices. Steinbeck comments on the treatment of the Mexican workers "as scrap," and the widespread abuses they suffered due to the impunity provided by Government's program to deport dissenting Mexicans. He also notes how Mexican workers, inspired by the example of workers in Mexico itself, began to organize themselves effectively, an impulse described as their "natural desire to organize" though their efforts were met with significant violence and lawlessness on both the citizens, growers, and officials of the Imperial Valley.[120]

The final group Steinbeck describes are Filipino men, who he refers to as "little brown men."[121] That they came without families made them attractive as a workforce, and they instead created male domestic units. Again, Steinbeck remarks on their ability to live on very little food and with few material goods. Racism against Filipino men arose less because of their role as a threat to white labor, but rather because of their extra-legal relations (caused by laws against inter-racial liaisons and marriages) with white women and the threat it posed to white masculinity. With the independence of the Philippines, the vast majority of the Filipino workers were subject to repatriation.

Steinbeck's discussion of the different racial groups involved in migrant agricultural labor spends most of its time noting the differences between the groups, though primarily concerns itself with distinguishing the foreigners from the white American farmers in terms of ability to subsist on poor wages and their ability to organize. He also consistently points out the violence levied at each foreign group, caused by the threat they posed to white labor and the system of sanoat qishloq xo'jaligi.

Tanqid va meros

On October 20, 1936, several days after the initial release of the letters, Steinbeck published a letter in the San-Fransisko yangiliklari responding to criticism from migrant workers over being referred to as "gypsies." "I have heard that a number of migrant workers have resented the title," Steinbeck wrote. "Certainly I had no intention of insulting a people who are already insulted beyond endurance."[122] Within days, however, migrants' Camp Central Committee responded reassuringly in the same publication: "We think you did a fine job for us and we thank you. this is a big battle which cannot be won by ourselves, we need friends like you."[123]

Steinbeck's series immediately became an important and influential work in the scholarly and popular investigation of California migrant labor. His articles built on and contributed to the works of economist Paul Taylor, photographer Doroteya Lange, and historian Carey McWilliams. McWilliams cited the series twice in the 1939 edition of his book Daladagi fabrikalar.[124]

The pamphlet remained a valued item in publishing circles decades later. Helen Hosmer, the publisher, remembered seeing a copy sold in 1967 for $500.[125]

Contemporary analysis of Steinbeck's text, while largely positive, has primarily criticized the articles' narrow scope and irqchi podtonlar. Berkli History Professor James Gregory, in a mixed of a Heyday kitoblari 1988 edition of the pamphlet, argues that Steinbeck's harsh treatment of agrobiznes ignores the potential for exploitation in small family farms. He also argues that Steinbeck's choice to overlook the stories of more successful migrant workers created the potential for qolipga solish.[126] Despite his anguish over the incompleteness of Steinbeck's social history, Gregory goes on to call Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish "a marvelous document of his time, important both to those interested in Steinbeck's personal development...and for anyone interested in the political passions surrounding Chang kosa migration."[127]

Historian Charles Wollenberg, in the introduction to the 1988 edition, attacks Steinbeck's assertion that unionization was inevitable because whites would "insist on a standard of living far higher than that which was accorded foreign 'cheap labor'" as ethnocentric and misguided.[128] JMU English Professor Mollie Godfrey, in her article "They Ain't Human: John Steinbeck, Proletarian Fiction, and the Racial Politics of 'The People'," takes a slightly less critical stance, citing Steinbeck's claim that "racial discrimination" was one of the wealthy farmers' primary methods of maintaining power and arguing that Steinbeck's touting of white labor was largely "tactical."[129] Godfrey acknowledges, however, that Steinbeck "attempts to combat economic exploitation of migrant workers by affirming their whiteness."[130]

1999 yilda, Nyu-York universiteti Communications Professor Mitchell Stephens directed a project to the determine "The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century." Steinbeck's accounts of migrant labor placed 31st on Mitchell's list, which was compiled by intellectuals including Morley xavfsizroq, Jorj Uill va Pit Xemill. 2002 yilda, Heyday kitoblari released an updated version of its 1988 printing.[131]

Aftermath and effect on policy

In his introduction to the 1988 edition, Wollenberg concludes:

Even the popularity of G'azab uzumlari, however, did not produce significant public programs to assist the migrants. Foreign affairs and the coming U.S. involvement in Ikkinchi jahon urushi increasingly captured the nation's attention. By the end of 1940, reporter Erni Pyle deb ta'kidladi Yaxshi no longer made headlines: "people sort of forgot them". A year later, the labor surplus of the Depression had been transformed into an extraordinary wartime shortage of workers. Migrants who were not subject to military service found well-paying jobs in California's booming shipyards, aircraft factories and other defense plants. The Joads and their fellow Okies ultimately found economic salvation, not in the small farms they dreamed of owning, but in urban industry fueled by billions of federal dollars. California growers, desperate for labor, once again turned to Mexico. Hundreds of thousands of new workers crossed the border, many of them arriving under the terms of the U.S. government's Bracero dastur. With the farm labor force no longer dominated by white Americans, little attention or sympathy was focused on social conditions in rural California. Gacha emas Delano strike of 1965, in an era sensitized by the Fuqarolik huquqlari harakati, did issues raised in G'azab uzumlari return to the broad public consciousness. And not until 1975 did the state legislature establish an Qishloq xo'jaligi mehnat munosabatlari kengashi similar to the one Steinbeck advocated in 1936.

—Charles Wollenberg.[132]:xvi

Adabiyotlar

  1. ^ "Steinbeck's The Harvest Gypsies". pbs.org. 2013 yil mart.
  2. ^ Brian E. Railsback, Michael J. Meyer, eds. Jon Steynbek ensiklopediyasi (Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2006), 148.
  3. ^ James R. Swenson, "Focusing on the Migrant: The Contextualization of Dorothea Lange's Photographs of the John Steinbeck Committee" in A Political Companion to John Steinbeck (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 2013).
  4. ^ Robert DeMott, "Introduction" in The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck (New York: Penguin Classics, 2006), xxix.
  5. ^ "Timeline: Surviving the Dust Bowl, 1931-1939", PBS, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/dustbowl/. Qabul qilingan 30 mart 2015 yil.
  6. ^ "Farm Labor in the 1930s", in Qishloq migratsiyasi yangiliklari, Jild 9, No. 3, October 2003 https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=788 Qabul qilingan 30 mart 2015 yil.
  7. ^ John Steinbeck Biography: Early Years", National Steinbeck Center, "Arxivlangan nusxa". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015-04-26. Olingan 2015-04-26.CS1 maint: nom sifatida arxivlangan nusxa (havola) Qabul qilingan 30 mart 2015 yil.
  8. ^ "Farm Labor in the 1930s", in Qishloq migratsiyasi yangiliklari, Jild 9, No. 3, October 2003, https://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=788 Qabul qilingan 30 mart 2015 yil.
  9. ^ "The Harvest Gypsies: Overview", San Jose State: Steinbeck in the Schools http://sits.sjsu.edu/curriculum-resources/the-harvest-gypsies/ Qabul qilingan 30 mart 2015 yil.
  10. ^ "THE DUST BOWL: A Film by Ken Burns".
  11. ^ Elaine Woo, "Sanora Babb, 98; Writer Whose Masterpiece Rivaled Steinbeck's." Los Anjeles Tayms, 2006 yil 8-yanvar. http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jan/08/local/me-babb8
  12. ^ Jackson J. Benson, "To Tom, Who Lived It: John Steinbeck and the Man from Weedpatch," Zamonaviy adabiyotlar jurnali (April, 1976), 151-94.
  13. ^ "John Steinbeck Biography: The California Novels" "Arxivlangan nusxa". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2015-04-26. Olingan 2015-04-26.CS1 maint: nom sifatida arxivlangan nusxa (havola)
  14. ^ Robert DeMott, ed. Working Days: The Journals of the Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck (New York: The Viking Press, 1989), pp. xli-xlii).
  15. ^ Shteynbek, Jon (1936). Chig'anoqlarni yig'ib olish. p. 18.
  16. ^ PBS, https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/culture/steinbecks-the-harvest-gypsies/16473/
  17. ^ Steinbeck, 11
  18. ^ William Howarth "The Mother of Literature: Journalism and The Grapes of Wrath" inNew Essays on The Grapes of Wrath, David Wyatt, ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp.71-96.
  19. ^ Robert DeMott, "Introduction" in The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck (New York: Penguin Classics, 2006), xxix.
  20. ^ Helen Hosmer, Helen Hosmer: A Radical Critic of California Agribusiness in the 1930 (Santa Cruz: University of California, Santa Cruz, 1992), p57-8.
  21. ^ Anne Loftis, Witnesses to the Struggle: Imaging the 1930s California Labor Movement (Reno: University of Nevada Press, 1998), p. 168.
  22. ^ Hosmer, 58.
  23. ^ Hosmer, 57.
  24. ^ Shteynbek, Jon (1936). Harvest Gypsies. p. 3.
  25. ^ Steinbeck 3
  26. ^ Steinbeck 7
  27. ^ Steinbeck 4
  28. ^ Steinbeck 6
  29. ^ Steinbeck 5
  30. ^ Steinbeck 5
  31. ^ Steinbeck 4
  32. ^ Steinbeck, 28-32
  33. ^ Steinbeck 4
  34. ^ Steinbeck 4
  35. ^ Steinbeck 6
  36. ^ Steinbeck, 28
  37. ^ Steinbeck 6
  38. ^ Steinbeck, 8
  39. ^ Steinbeck, 8-9
  40. ^ Steinbeck, 8
  41. ^ Steinbeck, 10
  42. ^ Steinbeck, 9
  43. ^ Steinbeck, 10
  44. ^ Steinbeck, 10
  45. ^ Steinbeck, 10
  46. ^ Steinbeck, 11
  47. ^ Steinbeck, 11
  48. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  49. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  50. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  51. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  52. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  53. ^ Steinbeck, 12
  54. ^ Steinbeck, 13
  55. ^ Steinbeck, 15
  56. ^ Steinbeck, 16
  57. ^ Steinbeck, 17
  58. ^ Steinbeck 21
  59. ^ Steinbeck 18
  60. ^ Steinbeck 19
  61. ^ Steinbeck 20
  62. ^ Steinbeck 20
  63. ^ Steinbeck 20-21
  64. ^ Steinbeck 22
  65. ^ Steinbeck, 23
  66. ^ Steinbeck, 24
  67. ^ Steinbeck, 25
  68. ^ Steinbeck 32
  69. ^ Steinbeck 28
  70. ^ Steinbeck 32
  71. ^ Steinbeck 29
  72. ^ Steinbeck 29
  73. ^ Steinbeck 29
  74. ^ Steinbeck 31
  75. ^ Steinbeck 30
  76. ^ Steinbeck 29
  77. ^ Steinbeck 30
  78. ^ Steinbeck 31
  79. ^ Steinbeck 30
  80. ^ Steinbeck 31
  81. ^ Steinbeck 28
  82. ^ Steinbeck 28
  83. ^ Steinbeck 28
  84. ^ Steinbeck 28
  85. ^ Steinbeck 31
  86. ^ Steinbeck 30
  87. ^ Steinbeck 31
  88. ^ Steinbeck 32
  89. ^ Steinbeck 31
  90. ^ Steinbeck 32
  91. ^ Steinbeck 33.
  92. ^ Steinbeck 33-34.
  93. ^ Steinbeck 34.
  94. ^ Steinbeck 34.
  95. ^ Steinbeck 34-35.
  96. ^ Steinbeck 35.
  97. ^ Steinbeck 35.
  98. ^ Steinbeck 36.
  99. ^ Steinbeck 14.
  100. ^ Steinbeck 14.
  101. ^ Steinbeck 15.
  102. ^ Steinbeck 15.
  103. ^ Steinbeck 16.
  104. ^ Steinbeck 36.
  105. ^ Steinbeck 36.
  106. ^ Steinbeck, 38
  107. ^ Steinbeck 27
  108. ^ Steinbeck, 27
  109. ^ Steinbeck, 27
  110. ^ Steinbeck, 29
  111. ^ Steinbeck, 39
  112. ^ Steinbeck, 38
  113. ^ Steinbeck, 39
  114. ^ Steinbeck, 42
  115. ^ Steinbeck, 5
  116. ^ Steinbeck, 5.
  117. ^ Steinbeck, 28.
  118. ^ Steinbeck, 29
  119. ^ Steinbeck, 29
  120. ^ Steinbeck, 29-30
  121. ^ Steinbeck, 30
  122. ^ Rick Wartzman, "Obscene in the Extreme: The Burning and Banning of John Steinbeck's the Grapes of Wrath," (New York: PublicAffairs, 2009), 89-90.
  123. ^ Wartzman, 91
  124. ^ Carey McWilliams, Factories in the Field (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1939), p. 273, 316.
  125. ^ Hosmer, p. 57-8.
  126. ^ James N. Gregory, "The Harvest Gypsies: On the Road to the Grapes of Wrath." In California History, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Spring, 1990), pp. 71-72.
  127. ^ Gregory, 72
  128. ^ Charles Wollenberg, "Introduction," in "The Harvest Gypsies: On the Road to The Grapes of Wrath," (Berkeley: Heyday Books), 1988.
  129. ^ Molly Godfrey, "They Ain't Human: John Steinbeck, Proletarian Fiction, and the Racial Politics of 'The People,'" in Modern Fiction Studies, Vo.59, No.1 (Spring 2013), 107-134; 114.
  130. ^ Godfrey, 115
  131. ^ "The Harvest Gypsies: On the Road to the Grapes of Wrath." https://heydaybooks.com/book/the-harvest-gypsies/.
  132. ^ Charles Wollenberg, "Introduction," in The Harvest Gypsies: On the Road to The Grapes of Wrath, (Berkeley: Heyday Books), 1988.