Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
whole spectrum of practical and political positions with respect to the labor
problem, and my discussion of these positions provides additional context
to the story.
13
Among the campus-based UC researchers and county farm advisors who
were charged with improving California agriculture in the early part of the
twentieth century, farm labor did not initially appear to be a central
concern. Occasionally labor issues were addressed in passing, such as when
the UC professor of agriculture Eugene Hilgard suggested in 1884 that
cotton might be a good crop for California growers, not only because of
its benefi ts to local soils but also because “by the spreading out of work
over the entire twelve months cotton serves to secure steady employment,
and therefore a steady laboring class” (Scheuring 1995, 33). It was not until
U.S. involvement in World War I that the UC began to pay more attention
to farm labor, owing to a labor shortage that foreshadowed similar prob-
lems during World War II. The UC assigned R. L. Adams, a member of the
Giannini Foundation for agricultural economics on the Berkeley campus,
to study and report on the farm labor situation in California. His reports,
released in the late 1910s and early 1920s, became notorious among critics
of California's farm labor system because of his racialized descriptions of
farm laborers and the practical advice he lent to growers based on these
distinctions. For instance, in an Experiment Station bulletin published
in 1918, he claimed that “quarters provided for peon, coolie, or Oriental
labor are generally not suitable for men demanding American standards
of living” (Adams and Kelly 1918, 9). Further, in a textbook on general
principles of farm management, Adams typologized racial and ethnic
groups according to his perceptions of their characteristics, terming
Mexicans, for example, in this way: “The common Mexican peon or laborer
is usually a peaceful, somewhat childish, rather lazy, unambitious, fairly
faithful person. He occasionally needs to be stirred up to get him to work,
but if treated fairly he will work faithfully” (Adams 1921, 522; see also
McWilliams 1939, 140).
In addition, Adams's typology included several other racialized and class-
based stereotypes. These descriptions are crude, even by the standards of
Adams's time, but the most interesting point about them is that they were
intended as practical advice for growers to use in dealing with farm labor.
Each subgroup within Adams's typology requires different treatment,
and his recommendations for each group are tied to his perception of the
