During the Depression people everywhere were challenged to survive. If you had to pick one of the locations we talked about in class to live, which area would you choose and why? Be SPECIFIC!
I would like to be one of the first people in California, the first to get a job. Every rumor has a beginning, and to be one of the few to get a job in California would be the best situation of a lot of bad choices. The moving west symbolizing a new start would be a refreshing breath of fresh air. Making it in California, especially as a movie star or something of the kind would be a great resolution to a very rough situation.
I would definitally want to live in the West. The West is the best place to live for two main reasons. 1.) Jobs- Although the Grapes of Wrath really puts a negative slant on the West, there is still some truth in the fact that there were still job oppertunities to be had in the West. During the time of the depression, California farms would have been growing Grapes, Citrus, and other produce. This surplus of produce lead to the need for many workers to man the fields.
2.) The west is also much better than the south because of the fact that the West was not subject to as many prejudices and racial problems as the south. In the West, there was a melting pot of Asian immigrants, Hispanics, African Americans, and Whites that led to a more amiable attitude toward different races.
Both jobs and lack of racial tensions are the main reasons why I would want to live in the West.
I have to agree with John and Steve about destination CA being the least of the evils. Between 1930 and 1934 the per capita income in CA average of $635 compares favorably to TX and the average of $298.44. Agricultural opportunities in CA with crops like citrus, grapes, nuts, and lettuce (as well as the peaches so much mentioned in Grapes of Wrath), made for employment chances. Yet, as the 1/3 of the migratory Mexican-American pickers went back to Mexico, it seems that the racism/discrimination against the "Oakies" escalated. Would I want to be poor, but liked, or have a job, but constantly worried about hatred directed at me from police and angry Californians? Tough choices.
Even though Steve and John make good points about the West, I would personally pick to stay in the city. Having a community setting helped people face destitution, and a support system is one of the most important parts of dealing with change. Jobs were scarce, but their was still a considerable amount of factories and service jobs left. Moving across the country to uncertainty, Hoovervilles, and competition between the 300,000 transients for jobs would take a huge toll on a family, and possibly cause it to split up. The West was synonymous with opportunity, but in actuality many people's problems only got worse as they moved. Discrimination toward "Okies" also would prevent families from being taken seriously for higher paying jobs, if any were left. Staying in the city seems to me to be the best option in order to keep a family together, and semi-stable life.
I agree with Jenilee, staying in the city would be my choice. Moving just added on to the situation. How are you going to get there? Pay for transportation, whether it be buying a car or just inevitably buying gasoline. Is everyone and everything going to come along? Of course not, you wouldn't have enough room. You may have had to leave family, but you definately would have to leave possesions. Honestly making due with what you have sounds nice to me, and you'd still have your family intact for support. Also, the home garden would be a plus of the cities. In the west, Most people were left jobless and now homeless too! & Steve although your idea of being first sounds lovely, most people didn't have that option..
Personally, I'd be one to live in the cities. If you're going to find work, it is actually likely in big cities. All you need to do is look. Jobs could be found if you looked hard enough-many people just didn't have the fortune to be in the city. Everything that ran in the cities needed someone to run them. They needed people to run the movie projector in theaters, they needed waiters at the restaurants that remained open. If you truly wanted a job, you'd look there. The South was a terrible place to be-if you weren't a white, you weren't going to fit in there. Plus, the south was majorly jobless, and plenty of people left their homes for the West. Ah, the West. People flooded from all over to find a job in the wealth that was California. However, unless you left a year before everyone else, there were no jobs to be found. People squabbled and fought over a peach picking job and the owners haggled on the lowest prices they could pay the workers. Yes, the cities were the place to be of the 1930's.
I also agree with Abbey and Jennilee. I'd rather stay in the city. You would have a better chance of your family to stay together, and although California promised jobs, it was hardly anything to live off. Competition for jobs was outrageous, and that would drive wages down even lower. You wouldn't have to buy a car or pay for gas to travel, either. To me, staying in the city and waiting in a bread line everyday would be better than moving, or facing racial discrimination in the South.
Either the cities or the west would have been an alright place for me to live. I would have been able to survive in those two regions. However, I would never be able to tolerate a place like the south of the late 1920's and early 1930's. If I grew up in the 20's, and had racist parents, I most likely would have had racism burned into my brain; however, I was born in the 90's with parents that despised racism as much as they despised homicide. Therefore, I hate racism. During the Great Depression and the times leading up to it, Jim Crow laws played a major role in African Americans' lives. Sadly, over eighty percent of African Americans that worked on farms made less than one quarter of the average factory worker's wage. Also, the Mississippi Flood of 1927 flooded thousands of square miles and killed over 240 people. In the town of Greenville, Mississippi, over 13,000 men and women, mostly African American, were left stranded without food, water, and sanitation. Tragedies such as this flood, the racism of the south, and the fact that many southerners suffered from malnutrition which led to pellagra and rickets, makes the south a place I would never be able to stand.
I'm not sure when this is due but I thought I would get it done. I would rather live in the cities for a variety of reasons. First the cities were and always will be the center of commerce and business. This is the reason why cities form and actually one of the defining factors in naming large cities. So I would stay where there are the maximum job opportunities. Even though the west was advertising jobs, they really did not have that much in response from all of the migrants "Oakies" from the South and Mid West States. In addition you would have to pay for a car and gas just to get there. Additionally in some cities like New York $2.39 was paid to unemployed families. Although it isn’t much it is better than nothing. Also after FDR introduces the New Deal the cities received a lot of the new government paid jobs. These are the main reasons why I would have rather stayed in the cities; however we have to acknowledge the fact that we are analyzing and studying this situation and major decision for many families with complete and total hindsight which they did not have the privilege of having. It is a lot easier to make a decision if you know what will happen next.
i would have to agree with all on moving out to the west. It just seemed to be the lesser of the 3 evils. At least out in California, there would be work, and i could try to make a living for me and my family. I just seems to me that staying would not be an option for me. It's like picking a college. Do you want to go to some lowly community college and have a job the earns you very little money, or would you like to leave town and get a good degree at a major university that will get you a decent paying job that will be able to support you and your family? California to me is like leaving town for the major university. i would have a job, make some decent money and be able to provide for my family. well, or so I thought. If i had to live in the great depression, i'd pick to live in the west, because of much opportunity. however if i had a choice, i'd pick not to live in the great depression
I would personally prefer to live in the Southern region of the United States if I was privileged enough to be able to choose where I lived during the Great Depression. The West was choked by the Dust Bowl, and the only main jobs in that region were as a farmer or picker of crops. As for the eastern cities, there was too much competition for employment in those regions. It seems that the South would not have problems with the dust bowl or with overcrowding and job competition of the cities.
Andrew, just out of curiosity why would you want to live in the west? You claim that you could get a job, but THE GRAPES OF WRATH and other historical documentation seems to say otherwise. Why the West? Do you think you could have gotten a job that easily?
Each of these areas appears to come with their own pros and cons. However, if I were presented with the challenge of choosing an area to live in during hard times like these, I'd have to chose the cities. Really, this decision is purely made on default. California drew many immigrants seeking jobs in the often falsified hope that California often proved to be; with intense competition and racist attitudes working conditions could only consequently suffer. The Grapes of Wrath gives us an insight on the hardship of a family seeking refuge in California from the Dust Bowl, this story brings me to be skeptical of the idea of migrating to California. Harrison and Tyler bring up valid points about the cities; they would logically be the center of commerce and trade. I would seek work in the cities, and would hopefully find work and maybe aid from government agencies like Harrison says. Despite far less than ideal circumstance, I feel the cities in this time period were "where it's at".
This is such a simple question to answer. If I were to live anywhere, I would live in the city. You are so much more likely to survive in the city than you are anywhere else. The reason I say this is simple. When you live in the city you can find lines for food. In which case, it is very hard to go hungry. Not only could I find food lines so that I do not have to go hungry, but you can also find work. This is a great help, on the unlikely circumstances that you can find a job you can use the money for clothing or more food. You not only have helpful resources around you like food lines and possible jobs, but you also have the community of people who can help you. This makes flawless sense the population in the city is much, much larger therefore many more people would be willing to help you out.
I would prefer to be out west. As Walker says, the west was likely to have jobs. While John may say jobs weren't present, that was for people just moving in. To qualify my earlier statement, I would have liked to be out west already, before the Depression began, rather than just moving there. While jobs for the Okies weren't common, the Depression hit the population of CA the least. True, we would have to put up with floods of immigrants, but the West provides an opportunity to get away from the crowding of the cities where resources are low.
I would deffinately pick city, There would be a better chance my family would stay together . The home garden would allow me to be self sufficient for food. the city was abundent in buisness. I completely agree with tyler, the south was jobless and the city seemed to me to be crazy filled with jobs if you just looked around.
I would choose the city for most of the same reasons other people said. Traveling ALL the way to California would be an incredible risk because of the hundreds of thousands of other "okies" migrating westward in search of work. In a city, a man starving to death would be unlikely. Unless you were extremely unfortunate, someone, somehow, would be able to get you enough to at least survive. If they traveled across the long, barren route 66, there was a good chance they would find a whole lot of nothing and could actually die of malnutrition or starvation. I like what Jennilee said about having a support system in a city. In a city, there are many people who are in the same position that aren't going anywhere and are likely to help you out; if not financially or physically, at least emotionally. If you are traveling from Hooverville to Hooverville, its unlikely that you will be with the same group of people for an extended amount of time. When all the pros and cons are weighed, I would have to say that my chances of survival with a halfway decent life quality, would lie within a city.
Well I believe the best place is communist Russia and I am serious when I say this. The reason why I would go to Russia is because they were one of the only ones not to be affected by the Great Depression. Sure it was hard work over there but my family and I would all have jobs, place to stay, healthcare, and most importantly all the fur hats, vodka, and guns that you possibly could have. By the time Hitler came into power and FDR New Deal really started to get a move on then I would come back, and I would come with the knowledge, tools, vodka, fur hats, and guns to be more successful on the home front. People, government officials, and CEO's do this all the time and they do it mostly to open a new horizon on ways to do things and share what they know with other people.
I would definitely strive to live in California. Besides the west having less problems with segregation and racial problems, there was a plethora of jobs available. When watching the move The Grapes of Wrath, the Joads have an extremely hard time finding jobs, but during the great depression would have been around the same time for a great fruit harvest. Jobs would have been much more available than it seemed in the movie. Though I know I won’t be able to just snap my fingers and have a job as soon as I arrive in the western region, I think that I would have a much larger chance of finding work in the west as opposed to other places. I also feel that if I were to live in the west my family would greatly benefit. Everyone would have the chance to get a decent job, food to eat, and the living conditions would be very suitable for the entire family. If I had to pick, there is no doubt i would take my family straight to the west.
I would like to be one of the first people in California, the first to get a job. Every rumor has a beginning, and to be one of the few to get a job in California would be the best situation of a lot of bad choices. The moving west symbolizing a new start would be a refreshing breath of fresh air. Making it in California, especially as a movie star or something of the kind would be a great resolution to a very rough situation.
ReplyDeleteI would definitally want to live in the West. The West is the best place to live for two main reasons.
ReplyDelete1.) Jobs- Although the Grapes of Wrath really puts a negative slant on the West, there is still some truth in the fact that there were still job oppertunities to be had in the West. During the time of the depression, California farms would have been growing Grapes, Citrus, and other produce. This surplus of produce lead to the need for many workers to man the fields.
2.) The west is also much better than the south because of the fact that the West was not subject to as many prejudices and racial problems as the south. In the West, there was a melting pot of Asian immigrants, Hispanics, African Americans, and Whites that led to a more amiable attitude toward different races.
Both jobs and lack of racial tensions are the main reasons why I would want to live in the West.
I have to agree with John and Steve about destination CA being the least of the evils. Between 1930 and 1934 the per capita income in CA average of $635 compares favorably to TX and the average of $298.44. Agricultural opportunities in CA with crops like citrus, grapes, nuts, and lettuce (as well as the peaches so much mentioned in Grapes of Wrath), made for employment chances. Yet, as the 1/3 of the migratory Mexican-American pickers went back to Mexico, it seems that the racism/discrimination against the "Oakies" escalated. Would I want to be poor, but liked, or have a job, but constantly worried about hatred directed at me from police and angry Californians? Tough choices.
ReplyDeleteEven though Steve and John make good points about the West, I would personally pick to stay in the city. Having a community setting helped people face destitution, and a support system is one of the most important parts of dealing with change. Jobs were scarce, but their was still a considerable amount of factories and service jobs left. Moving across the country to uncertainty, Hoovervilles, and competition between the 300,000 transients for jobs would take a huge toll on a family, and possibly cause it to split up. The West was synonymous with opportunity, but in actuality many people's problems only got worse as they moved. Discrimination toward "Okies" also would prevent families from being taken seriously for higher paying jobs, if any were left. Staying in the city seems to me to be the best option in order to keep a family together, and semi-stable life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jenilee, staying in the city would be my choice. Moving just added on to the situation. How are you going to get there? Pay for transportation, whether it be buying a car or just inevitably buying gasoline. Is everyone and everything going to come along? Of course not, you wouldn't have enough room. You may have had to leave family, but you definately would have to leave possesions. Honestly making due with what you have sounds nice to me, and you'd still have your family intact for support. Also, the home garden would be a plus of the cities. In the west, Most people were left jobless and now homeless too! & Steve although your idea of being first sounds lovely, most people didn't have that option..
ReplyDeletePersonally, I'd be one to live in the cities. If you're going to find work, it is actually likely in big cities. All you need to do is look. Jobs could be found if you looked hard enough-many people just didn't have the fortune to be in the city. Everything that ran in the cities needed someone to run them. They needed people to run the movie projector in theaters, they needed waiters at the restaurants that remained open. If you truly wanted a job, you'd look there. The South was a terrible place to be-if you weren't a white, you weren't going to fit in there. Plus, the south was majorly jobless, and plenty of people left their homes for the West. Ah, the West. People flooded from all over to find a job in the wealth that was California. However, unless you left a year before everyone else, there were no jobs to be found. People squabbled and fought over a peach picking job and the owners haggled on the lowest prices they could pay the workers. Yes, the cities were the place to be of the 1930's.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Abbey and Jennilee. I'd rather stay in the city. You would have a better chance of your family to stay together, and although California promised jobs, it was hardly anything to live off. Competition for jobs was outrageous, and that would drive wages down even lower. You wouldn't have to buy a car or pay for gas to travel, either. To me, staying in the city and waiting in a bread line everyday would be better than moving, or facing racial discrimination in the South.
ReplyDeleteEither the cities or the west would have been an alright place for me to live. I would have been able to survive in those two regions. However, I would never be able to tolerate a place like the south of the late 1920's and early 1930's. If I grew up in the 20's, and had racist parents, I most likely would have had racism burned into my brain; however, I was born in the 90's with parents that despised racism as much as they despised homicide. Therefore, I hate racism. During the Great Depression and the times leading up to it, Jim Crow laws played a major role in African Americans' lives. Sadly, over eighty percent of African Americans that worked on farms made less than one quarter of the average factory worker's wage. Also, the Mississippi Flood of 1927 flooded thousands of square miles and killed over 240 people. In the town of Greenville, Mississippi, over 13,000 men and women, mostly African American, were left stranded without food, water, and sanitation. Tragedies such as this flood, the racism of the south, and the fact that many southerners suffered from malnutrition which led to pellagra and rickets, makes the south a place I would never be able to stand.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure when this is due but I thought I would get it done. I would rather live in the cities for a variety of reasons. First the cities were and always will be the center of commerce and business. This is the reason why cities form and actually one of the defining factors in naming large cities. So I would stay where there are the maximum job opportunities. Even though the west was advertising jobs, they really did not have that much in response from all of the migrants "Oakies" from the South and Mid West States. In addition you would have to pay for a car and gas just to get there. Additionally in some cities like New York $2.39 was paid to unemployed families. Although it isn’t much it is better than nothing. Also after FDR introduces the New Deal the cities received a lot of the new government paid jobs. These are the main reasons why I would have rather stayed in the cities; however we have to acknowledge the fact that we are analyzing and studying this situation and major decision for many families with complete and total hindsight which they did not have the privilege of having. It is a lot easier to make a decision if you know what will happen next.
ReplyDeleteInteresting viewpoints gang! Checked 10/5/10
ReplyDeletei would have to agree with all on moving out to the west. It just seemed to be the lesser of the 3 evils. At least out in California, there would be work, and i could try to make a living for me and my family. I just seems to me that staying would not be an option for me. It's like picking a college. Do you want to go to some lowly community college and have a job the earns you very little money, or would you like to leave town and get a good degree at a major university that will get you a decent paying job that will be able to support you and your family? California to me is like leaving town for the major university. i would have a job, make some decent money and be able to provide for my family. well, or so I thought. If i had to live in the great depression, i'd pick to live in the west, because of much opportunity. however if i had a choice, i'd pick not to live in the great depression
ReplyDeleteI would personally prefer to live in the Southern region of the United States if I was privileged enough to be able to choose where I lived during the Great Depression. The West was choked by the Dust Bowl, and the only main jobs in that region were as a farmer or picker of crops. As for the eastern cities, there was too much competition for employment in those regions. It seems that the South would not have problems with the dust bowl or with overcrowding and job competition of the cities.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, just out of curiosity why would you want to live in the west? You claim that you could get a job, but THE GRAPES OF WRATH and other historical documentation seems to say otherwise. Why the West? Do you think you could have gotten a job that easily?
ReplyDeleteEach of these areas appears to come with their own pros and cons. However, if I were presented with the challenge of choosing an area to live in during hard times like these, I'd have to chose the cities. Really, this decision is purely made on default. California drew many immigrants seeking jobs in the often falsified hope that California often proved to be; with intense competition and racist attitudes working conditions could only consequently suffer. The Grapes of Wrath gives us an insight on the hardship of a family seeking refuge in California from the Dust Bowl, this story brings me to be skeptical of the idea of migrating to California. Harrison and Tyler bring up valid points about the cities; they would logically be the center of commerce and trade. I would seek work in the cities, and would hopefully find work and maybe aid from government agencies like Harrison says. Despite far less than ideal circumstance, I feel the cities in this time period were "where it's at".
ReplyDeleteGot these newest posts:)
ReplyDeleteThis is such a simple question to answer. If I were to live anywhere, I would live in the city. You are so much more likely to survive in the city than you are anywhere else. The reason I say this is simple. When you live in the city you can find lines for food. In which case, it is very hard to go hungry. Not only could I find food lines so that I do not have to go hungry, but you can also find work. This is a great help, on the unlikely circumstances that you can find a job you can use the money for clothing or more food. You not only have helpful resources around you like food lines and possible jobs, but you also have the community of people who can help you. This makes flawless sense the population in the city is much, much larger therefore many more people would be willing to help you out.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to be out west. As Walker says, the west was likely to have jobs. While John may say jobs weren't present, that was for people just moving in. To qualify my earlier statement, I would have liked to be out west already, before the Depression began, rather than just moving there. While jobs for the Okies weren't common, the Depression hit the population of CA the least. True, we would have to put up with floods of immigrants, but the West provides an opportunity to get away from the crowding of the cities where resources are low.
ReplyDeleteGot the Peter & Ben comments:) 10/12/10
ReplyDeleteI would deffinately pick city, There would be a better chance my family would stay together . The home garden would allow me to be self sufficient for food. the city was abundent in buisness. I completely agree with tyler, the south was jobless and the city seemed to me to be crazy filled with jobs if you just looked around.
ReplyDeleteGot this comment:)
ReplyDeleteI would choose the city for most of the same reasons other people said. Traveling ALL the way to California would be an incredible risk because of the hundreds of thousands of other "okies" migrating westward in search of work. In a city, a man starving to death would be unlikely. Unless you were extremely unfortunate, someone, somehow, would be able to get you enough to at least survive. If they traveled across the long, barren route 66, there was a good chance they would find a whole lot of nothing and could actually die of malnutrition or starvation. I like what Jennilee said about having a support system in a city. In a city, there are many people who are in the same position that aren't going anywhere and are likely to help you out; if not financially or physically, at least emotionally. If you are traveling from Hooverville to Hooverville, its unlikely that you will be with the same group of people for an extended amount of time. When all the pros and cons are weighed, I would have to say that my chances of survival with a halfway decent life quality, would lie within a city.
ReplyDeleteOK! Re-check on 10/19/10
ReplyDeleteWell I believe the best place is communist Russia and I am serious when I say this. The reason why I would go to Russia is because they were one of the only ones not to be affected by the Great Depression. Sure it was hard work over there but my family and I would all have jobs, place to stay, healthcare, and most importantly all the fur hats, vodka, and guns that you possibly could have. By the time Hitler came into power and FDR New Deal really started to get a move on then I would come back, and I would come with the knowledge, tools, vodka, fur hats, and guns to be more successful on the home front. People, government officials, and CEO's do this all the time and they do it mostly to open a new horizon on ways to do things and share what they know with other people.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely strive to live in California. Besides the west having less problems with segregation and racial problems, there was a plethora of jobs available. When watching the move The Grapes of Wrath, the Joads have an extremely hard time finding jobs, but during the great depression would have been around the same time for a great fruit harvest. Jobs would have been much more available than it seemed in the movie. Though I know I won’t be able to just snap my fingers and have a job as soon as I arrive in the western region, I think that I would have a much larger chance of finding work in the west as opposed to other places. I also feel that if I were to live in the west my family would greatly benefit. Everyone would have the chance to get a decent job, food to eat, and the living conditions would be very suitable for the entire family. If I had to pick, there is no doubt i would take my family straight to the west.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Got them:)
ReplyDelete