LANDSCAPES

THE GREAT PLAINS

The Great Plains spans the entirety of the Oklahoma State and during the 1930s was the site of the what’s termed as the Dust Bowl where “clouds of dust rose off the recently plowed land” (84). The climate is characterized as having dry winters and wet summers. European settlement took place after the Civil War where “semiarid grassland…with agricultural possibilities” typified the area. From the 1910s through the 1920s, farmers and ranchers moved to the area in an attempt to develop the land for agricultural means. The drought of the 1930s precipitated different techniques for agriculture which specifically “reduced the risk of erosion and made better use of soil moisture” (86). As the European population has steadily grown from the mid-nineteenth century onward, the environment has radically changed. “About a third of the Great Plains region” has replaced the open grasslands with croplands (91). The other two-thirds remained relatively unchanged due to its usage for livestock grazing.

Though, the Great Plains was the site of major upheaval of natural grasslands, during the 1930s, croplands replaced about 31 percent of the total land area (92). The upheaval of grasses for crops led to soil texture changes which affects plants taking root in the area — both crops and naturally succeeding plant species. Topsoil — the soil taken up as in the Dust Bowl — loses its capacity for retaining water and dries, becoming xeric. Further, soil chemistry is altered through the years of cultivation and harvests, and natural processes such as fires are suppressed (94-6). In succession or turnover of one plant species for another, there is a fairly specific process where one type of species replaces another as the first prepares the soil for the next. Thus, in a given area, an evolution of space takes place, and ecosystems sustains itself with life in such a manner. Due to the disruption of croplands, the native ecosystem is artificially replaced by foreign species which have an abnormal effect on the land’s development. In lands used primarily for grazing, however, disruption of habitat mainly skews towards animal diversity and riparian and aquatic habitats (97). 

Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath depicts natural forces and ecosystems as somewhat separate from human interaction. However, conversion of the Great Plains from grasslands to croplands has shown a noticeable effect. Thus, the apathy of nature towards humanity found in Steinbeck’s novel must stem from somewhere else. While agriculture does affect the land, the environment’s fickle nature merely undermines human significance. The land allows for life and growth, and if used up, the land dies for a period effectively ostracizing the people from it. While it does not seem that Steinbeck criticizes farming in general, he does point to a relationship humanity has with nature, and the irrevocable consequences of nature on a generation. Within this relationship, Steinbeck points to a metaphor comparing humanity’s relationship to nature with human relationships with each other. While the Joads amble along the road, they take care of each other and ask for little: understanding the sacrifice needed. The big farmers of California, however, seem to turn towards becoming a force of nature themselves. They’re apathetic to the plight of the migrant worker, and often facilitate their hardship by cutting wages. Like nature’s relationship to humans, the landowner’s livelihood is directly connected to people like the Joads. Unlike that relationship, the landowners relationship to the Joads is completely artificial. Though they try to mimic the natural forces present in the first chapter — powerful, apathetic, and aloof to the plight of the Okies — nature doesn’t need human interaction to propagate itself, though humans can change nature. The landowner’s power comes directly from the migrant workers, and Steinbeck shows that the landowner’s attempt to control the migrant workers is a petty facsimile of nature.