10/31/2016
Appalachian Change & Resistance
In Uneven Ground,
Ronald Eller analyzes the conflict between modernization of the Appalachian
region and the challenge this made for the people. Additionally, Eller
discusses the historical development of the governmental agency called the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC),
that aimed to coordinate resources to the Appalachian people (Eller, 2008.) The ARC likened
that of the War on Poverty, initiated
programs that perpetuated the political and economic inequalities by causing
dependence on the system (Eller, 2008.) Rarely did the programs address the
underlying problems Appalachians faced because investments went to cities, new
roads, highways, schools, retail centers, and other public infrastructures
(Eller, 2008.) In fact, fewest ARC dollars went to the counties with the worst
economic conditions of the region (Eller, 2008.) Because the ARC had faith in
consumerism and modernization, it sought to bring modern economic expansion to
the mountains.
The ARC’s goals were to align the mountain people with resources and
options in the context of a consumer-based, capitalist society. For example,
80% of total ARC appropriations were afforded to highway construction projects
(Eller, 2008.) The process was an aim to get poor or unemployed people out of
the rural confines of the hollows and commute to jobs in town or cities (Eller,
2008.) Consequently, the changing mountain landscape towards a consumer
society, were done so because of the coal and timber industries (Eller, 2008.)
The expansion of surface mining leveled thousands of acres of mountaintops
because the coal industry benefited from mountaintop removal (Eller, 2008.) Few
of the coal communities benefited from the infrastructure and industrial
development efforts of the 1970s (Eller, 2008.) The limited number of service
jobs and branch plants that came to nearby towns and villages, did not pay
equal to that of a miner’s wage, and often did not provide health or retirement
benefits (Eller, 2008.) As mentioned, the ARC was responsible for coordinating
resources to fund highway and road projects. In one example, the ARC encouraged
14 government agencies to reroute the Chesapeake river through a massive cut in
the mountainside to open land for urban redevelopment (Eller, 2008.)
Later, stores like Wal-Mart dotted the landscape during the Clinton era,
which made it possible for indigent, exploited regional people to buy products that were made by foreign indigent, exploited
people (Eller, 2008.) Wal-Mart and other outside industries were recruited for
former mining sites to replace them (Eller, 2008.) The consequences of
corporate chains are that small businesses could not compete with “low prices”,
and so small businesses were on a decline (Eller, 2008.) Additionally, the
corporate chain’s wealth did not trickle down to the region, and instead the
profits went out of the region, which also led to the decline of small
businesses (Eller, 2008.)
Furthermore, the prosperity from the tourism and travel industry did not
trickle down to the public either (Maggard, 2007.) Kentucky’s tourism and
travel industry are the third largest legal industry in the state and second
largest employer (Whitaker, 2007) from hotels, food services, and retail stores
(Maggard, 2007.) But, because these occupations were considered low-skilled
work, they did not pay equally as other industries that were male-dominated
occupations (Maggard, 2007.) Service jobs began to dominate the landscape away
from coal mining (Maggard, 2007.) Moreover, these occupations were oriented
towards women, in turn, women, especially women of color, were paid
significantly less than men in all industries (Maggard, 2007.) In the modern
age, service jobs dominate the labor force, thus there is a disproportionate
population of women that are being used to run the global capitalist system
while being exploited for cheap labor under the guise that women’s work is less
hard compared to men’s labor.
The symbols of consumer society made by the assumptions and actions of
the ARC’s developmental programs reflect the theoretical approaches described
by Lohmann with bureaucratic realism and Billings’ and Walls’ regional
development model. For example, the Regional development model influenced by central place theory is
associated with the actions of the ARC because it attempted to modernize
mountain people into business elites (Billings & Walls, 1977.) Also, the
ARC worked under this regional development model because it “concerned itself
with providing economic and social overhead capital, training people for skills
for new industrial and service jobs, facilitating migration, and promoting the
establishment or relocation of privately-owned industries through a growth
center” (Billings & Walls, 1977, p. 133.) The ARC used the regional
development model to justify directing funds to roads so people can get out of
their hollows to work for the capitalist system. This option was considered to
make Appalachians more independent, but the model worked counter to the
culture. Thus, Lohmann suggests the ARC is “ultimately responsibl[e] for the
problems of the region” (p. 218.)
Similarly, Bureaucratic
realism as Lohmann suggests, was associated with the ARC. This is because
the problems of the region were assumed to be poverty which means lack of
money. Thus, the ARC initiated efforts to for economic expansion and
development that created growth centers for job opportunities by introducing
new roads and highways (Lohmann, 2007.) Lohmann, Billings and Walls, and Eller
critiqued the ARC because the regional development model and bureaucratic
realism model remains the preferred method of anti-poverty initiatives instead
of new strategies. Doubts and criticisms loom over these anti-poverty
strategies because the economic development means tax revenues going outside of
the region to the corporations. The ARC evolved as a bureaucracy, competing
with personalities and loyalties (Eller, 2008.)
Frustrated from the
poor working conditions, lack of health services, low wages, and a bleak
landscape of the mountains, activists formed a grassroots movement that the ARC
funded, called the Appalachian Land
Ownership Task Force (Eller, 2008.) Grassroots movements are
nongovernmental groups that work towards overcoming stereotypes, exploitation,
and oppression in a community. The Appalachian
Land Ownership Task Force made up of young activists and college students frustrated
at the environmental conditions left by large corporations that mined the
region for coal and other minerals, which shipped those resources out of the
mountains untaxed while leaving its workers with black lung disease (Eller,
2008.) The group conducted a pioneering study, The Appalachian Land Ownership Survey initiated by the Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force,
finding that these large corporations and land companies controlled up to 90
and 100% of the surface land and the mineral resources in 80 Appalachian
counties (Eller, 2008.) The task force concluded that the wealthy landowners
paid only a small fraction of the taxes; and absentee landowners limited and
restricted job opportunities and alternatives to economic development (Eller,
2008.)
Consequently, the absentee ownership left the locals to
provide for public services schools, roads, and other public facilities with
their tax dollars which left the region starved for public support (Eller, 2008.)
This was because absentee and corporate owners paid a disproportionately low
amount of taxes. For example, in 14 West Virginia counties, 25 companies owned
44% of the surface land, yet only assessed for 20% of the area’s taxes (Eller,
2008.) Subsequently, the grassroots group prompted much of the pressure for
legislators to implement a severance tax on coal and other minerals to
redistribute the revenue (Eller, 2008.) Although this was a meager victory, the
reaction created more dialogue, and influenced the Kentucky Fair Tax Coalition (Eller, 2008.) The Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force’s accomplished
its goal in examining land ownership patterns and address the
inequality of taxation for the corporations and public.
With that said, the ARC failed to utilize any of the
recommendations made in the study, nor did it act on any results from that were
gathered in the study of land ownership trends (Eller, 2008.) So, the Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force
did not achieve its goal in the sense that government did not create a fair tax
structure. The study found that 8 million acres—more than 40% of land
surveyed—was owned and operated only by 50 private owners and the federal
government (Eller, 2008.) But the ARC did not restrict corporations and
industries from overtaking land and creating a balance and equal share of land
to all people. The extent to which The Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force
grassroots group was meager in creating social change, and may not be more effective than government programs because it is
not a public service-oriented initiative.
However, it is worth
noting that research provided by The Appalachian Land
Ownership Task Force
is often utilized in government to facilitate reform, regulation, and justice. In fact, utilizing the
research propagated by the task force can
aid in government programs to make them more effective and successful. The
research provided was tangible, exploratory, and non-biased to the public. It
is essential that government programs utilize research that aims to fix
problems at the root source. Research studies are part of institutionalized
learning that add to future research and further leads to empathy through
advocacy. Research studies provide a
historical context of a social problem to address problems at the root causes
(variables and factors.) Because research presents factors and variables
associated with a social issue, we can prevent, reduce, or improve on social
forces involved. Research provides the public with new information, thus
implications for the findings involve solving social issues and naturally a
revolution.
Again, the task force as well as many grassroots
organizations are individual, small solutions to a larger societal issue. The Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force may not be as effective as government in facilitating
positive change in the region, but the government programs put forth still do
little to change the root cause of the issues of the region (Eller, 2008.) Therefore,
it is important to have both government and grassroots solutions. Governments
inadvertently rely on these movements to educate them—even when advocates are
not necessarily experts. Because advocates have little power comparatively, it
takes large groups with access to a platform to have their voices and
narratives heard. Grassroots movements—although small and led by marginalized
people—create large conversations that shift the consciousness. The government can be part and in par
with citizen groups and grassroots movements. In fact, much legislation is
influenced from these movements. In this world, corporations hold power over
government while it holds power constrains people that perpetuates the
struggle, oppression, and friction that it claims to reduce and prevent. We are
a product of the government power and control, but we need both and one another
despite that.
Considering the initiatives made by the government were
thought to alleviate poverty, it was done in such a way that mainstreamed
poverty such as FDR’s New Deal and
Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, as
well as the ARC, which mixed popular ideas and the self-interest of national
politics (Eller, 2008.) Additionally, Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Appalachian Regional Development Act
(ARDA.) Under the Act included that: when public investments were invested into
the region, the areas where there is significant potential for future growth are
those to be targeted first (Eller, 2008.) This was because it was expected that
these areas would reap the greatest returns where public dollars were invested (Eller,
2008.) In other words, investments went to cities and highway systems to get to
those cities which was coordinated by the ARC (Eller, 2008.) This includes the Kentucky Tourism Development Act that
encouraged outside control of property and economic resources through tax break
incentives and bureaucratic organization that recreated the pattern within the
region (Whitaker, 2007.) This feature of our region was from coal mining and
timber corporations exploiting the land which transformed into office or fast
food work (Maggard, 2007.) Other initiatives made by the government included service-oriented
community action agencies (CCAs.) CCAs which were supposed to improve education
and job skills, instead focused federal resources towards low-skill training
opportunities such as clearing roadside brush and painting public buildings
(Eller, 2008.) Presumably, the efforts made by the government programs are
insulting to the people because they assume the Appalachian people want to
participate in a capitalist system.
Although, Appalachians have historically resisted the ways
capitalism has intruded in our way of life. For example, there are Kentuckians
that have individual strategies for maintaining their identity and autonomy
through diverse and seasonal work (Halperin, 2007.) This will be further
discussed below in the ways women and men resisted and accepted capitalism in
the region. As mentioned, The Appalachian Land Ownership Task Force synchronized mountain activists for
region-wide direct action against the unfair tax structure, elite capitalists,
and impractical government programs (Eller, 2008.) The mountain activists were
a counterculture movement that witnessed the patterns of corruption in
Appalachia as well as Vietnam (Eller, 2008.) Mountain activists were against
the Vietnam war because the same values and national priorities which allow
this country to inflict massive destruction upon the Vietnamese (Eller, 2008.)
The mountain activists and reformers, were counter to the stereotypes
associated with Appalachians (Eller, 2008.)
As
the nation adapted the regional development and bureaucratic realism models,
Kentuckians and Appalachians, still commonly lived an agrarian life for
families to subsist. Because of this, they were perceived as ‘behind the times’
when local color writers and the media forged a controlling image of
Appalachians as poor (Whitaker, 2007.) This sparked a missionary movement as
described by Whitaker in New Wave of
Colonization: The Economics of Tourism. Over time, outside companies and
corporations used this as an opportunity for profit under the ideal that it was
to help create jobs for the poor Appalachians (Whitaker, 2007.) And the government
generally agreed that job opportunities was the preferred anti-poverty strategy
(Lohmann, 2007.) This phenomenon only made it harder for Appalachians to
compete with big business. It became a matter of accepting the outside
corporations to make money. What happened was a resistance of the Appalachian
people (Whitaker, 2007.)
Often,
Kentuckians resist dependency on capitalism because the goal is to make ends
meet, without overconsumption and having too of something (i.e. power and
“stuff”.) Halperin says the Kentucky way
is a cultural idiom that describes the ways Kentuckians maintain their identity
and autonomy in their work in a time where there is constant change in the
industrial landscape. Some Kentuckians may have adapted to the changing
industrial landscape, for working in factory-based wage labor, but this is
negotiated because identity in their work is important to balance with kinship
and working at home. Therefore, Kentuckians and many Appalachians are
stereotyped to be peasant-like, because work is seen as second priority after
family. Working at home maintains the rural cultural identity while balancing
the kinship relationship. Although work may be unstable or informal for those
who resist capitalist dependency, there is always seasonal work, rotating the
periodic marketplace system such as welding, arts and crafts, construction and
repair, farming and gardening.
Kentuckians and Appalachians
recognize that in a capitalist-industrial system, you must have specialized
skills obtained through training and education. The specialization of skills is
not as varied as those Appalachians who resist capitalist dependency. For
example, Halperin mentions that for Kentuckians, their work is varied,
numerous, and constant tasks that change weekly, seasonally, and generationally.
As mentioned, their work is central to the home, which puts an emphasis on
strategies to tie work with kin and the home, mobilize family and others in the
region with diverse skills to sustain the family network (Halperin, 2007.) This
chain of relationships work like the capitalist system where college-educated,
affluent, white males are in power and reproduce power in their own image.
Instead, Kentuckians and Appalachians with informal work, network with kin,
neighbors, and friends in the community who have similar skill sets or diverse
skill sets and resources to help them mobilize and work on different projects,
such as building a house, logging an area, or hauling materials (Halperin, 2007.)
Clearly, government programs were
benefiting off corporations, and still the profits were not trickling back into
the public (Eller, 2008; Maggard, 2007.) Once again, this was because taxes and
land were not equally appropriated. Government programs made efforts to improve
the region, but it was funded by the same people that needed the assistance.
And although the government made efforts, it was at the expense of exploiting
resources and cheap labor. Appalachians resisted the ways capitalism intruded
their way of life (Eller, 2008.) Those who continue to resist the changes are
the Kentuckians that have individual strategies for maintaining identity and
autonomy through diverse and seasonal labor (Halperin, 2007.) Certainly, women were
represented in the labor force, particularly working poor women, but
unknowingly this meant there would be sex-segregated labor where women were
part of service-oriented occupations that made disproportionately and
insultingly low wages compared to men (Maggard, 2007.)
Because
Appalachians have historically been exploited for the rich land of resources by
outsiders, Kentuckians and others are suspicious of industry. It is not
surprising that the resistance of capitalism lies in the disdain for industry,
which is also a disdain for power and control of the region; and rightfully so considering
Appalachians became dependent on modernization after a history of resistance
(Halperin, 2007.) Through the resistance of capitalist
dependency, Kentuckians maintain their livelihood, freedom, and generosity
(Halperin, 2007.) Kentuckians do not want their only labor options to be
strenuous, dangerous, unhealthy and toxic work like that of factory-based labor
(Halperin, 2007.) It is not simply Appalachian culture that has perpetuated
poverty—the root cause is the process of ‘private industrial development’ that
was changing the overall American landscape (Eller, 2008.)
References
Billings,
D. B., & Walls, D. S. (1977). The Sociology of Southern Appalachia. In Appalachian Journal, 5(1), 131-144.
Eller, Ronald. D. (2008). Uneven Ground: Appalachia Since
1945. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
Halperin, Rhoda. H. The Kentucky Way: Resistance to
Dependency Upon Capitalism in an
Appalachian Region in Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present by Obermiller,
P. J. & Maloney, M. E. (2007.) Chapter 34, 309-317.
Lohmann, Roger
A. Four Perspectives on Appalachian Culture and Poverty in an Appalachian Region in Appalachia: Social
Context Past and Present by Obermiller, P. J. & Maloney, M. E. (2007.)
Chapter 24, 217-224.
Maggard’s “From Farm to Coal Camp to
Back Office and MacDonald’s: Living in the Midst of Appalachia’s Latest
Transformation” in an
Appalachian Region in Appalachia: Social Context Past and Present by
Obermiller, P. J. & Maloney, M. E. (2007.) Chapter 25, 225-235.
Whitaker’s “A New Wave of
Colonization: The Economics of the Tourism and Travel Industry in
Appalachian Kentucky” an
Appalachian Region in Appalachia: Social Context Past -and Present by
Obermiller, P. J. & Maloney, M. E. (2007.) Chapter 28, 245-252.
No comments:
Post a Comment