The Harvest Gypsies facts for kids
The Harvest Gypsies is a group of articles written by John Steinbeck. He wrote them for The San Francisco News newspaper. These articles focused on the lives of migrant workers in California's Central Valley. They were published daily from October 5 to 12, 1936. Steinbeck explored the challenges and small victories of American migrant workers during the Great Depression. He followed their journeys from one crop to another as they struggled to survive.
(photo by Dorothea Lange, 1936)
In 1938, these articles were put together into a booklet called Their Blood Is Strong. It was published by the Simon J. Lubin Society. This group wanted to teach Americans about the difficulties faced by migrant workers. The booklet included the seven articles, plus a new ending by Steinbeck called "Starvation Under the Orange Trees." It also had twenty-two photos by Dorothea Lange. Ten thousand copies were sold for twenty-five cents each.
Contents
Why people moved to California
The Dust Bowl and new workers
From 1931 to 1939, a terrible drought and soil erosion hit the Midwestern and Southern Plains. This event, known as the Dust Bowl, forced many families to leave their homes. Over one million Americans moved from their states to California. This was more than 20% of California's population at the time.
So many workers looking for jobs meant very low wages. This led to many people being underemployed and living in poverty. Steinbeck wrote about the worker camps, labor fights, and terrible living conditions. He was from California and wanted to show how these changes affected the state. He first wrote about this in his book In Dubious Battle (1936). The editor of San Francisco News was impressed and asked Steinbeck to write these articles.
How Steinbeck got his information
Steinbeck got a lot of help from documents from the Farm Security Administration (FSA). These included reports from Tom Collins. He managed a federal camp for migrants in Arvin, California. Many of these reports were written by Sanora Babb. She worked for Collins and wrote notes every night about the Dust Bowl families she met. Collins shared her reports with Steinbeck.
Collins gathered many interviews, stories, songs, and traditions from the camp residents. He shared this information with Steinbeck. Steinbeck used it, along with his own notes, to write The Harvest Gypsies.
Impact on Steinbeck's later books
The Harvest Gypsies came before some of Steinbeck's most famous books about migrant workers. These include Of Mice and Men (1937) and The Grapes of Wrath (1939). A Steinbeck expert, Robert DeMott, said that The Harvest Gypsies gave Steinbeck lots of exact details. He learned about the people's lives and their values.
Steinbeck spent many hours listening to migrant people. He worked beside them and shared their problems. This helped him create realistic characters and vivid settings for his camps. Many details from The Harvest Gypsies appeared again in The Grapes of Wrath. These included the "dignity and decency" of government camps. He also showed the widespread hunger of children and unfairness from authorities. Even the famous ending of The Grapes of Wrath was inspired by a story from The Harvest Gypsies.
Making the booklet
Helen Hosmer was important in California's labor groups. She was the one who helped publish the articles as Their Blood Is Strong. Steinbeck didn't plan to re-publish the series himself. By 1938, he was busy writing The Grapes of Wrath. Hosmer had to convince him to get involved.
Hosmer had worked as a researcher for the Farm Security Administration in the mid-1930s. There, she met Dorothea Lange and economist Paul Taylor. She also met Steinbeck and gave him data files she had collected. After leaving the FSA, Hosmer started the Simon J. Lubin Society. This group supported workers' rights.
Hosmer said Steinbeck was worried about working with "left-wingers." But he eventually agreed to let her publish the series. She combined the articles with Dorothea Lange's photos. She also gave the booklet its title, Their Blood Is Strong.
Hosmer first printed 100 booklets. She sold them for 25 cents, and the money went to her society. Steinbeck did not get any money. The demand for the booklet grew quickly. It became very valuable. Publishing houses from the East Coast tried to buy new copies. They offered as much as $100 for one booklet.
What the articles were about
Article 1: Who are the migrants?
This article, from October 5, 1936, introduces the migrant farm worker. Steinbeck called them "a shifting group of nomadic, poverty-stricken harvesters." They were driven by hunger from one crop to the next. Most came to California, with Steinbeck estimating "at least 150,000 homeless migrants."
California's farming needed many workers for harvests. But it only needed a few for maintenance. This led to too many workers, which kept wages very low. Migrants were vital for California's farms. But they were also disliked for being poor and needing help. Steinbeck wrote, "The migrants are needed, and they are hated."
A child in a camp said, "When they need us they call us migrants. When we've picked their crop, we're bums and we got to get out." Migrants wanted to escape poverty. They dreamed of owning land again and settling down. They wandered because they had no other choice to survive. Steinbeck always showed the dignity of these farmers.
The Great Depression changed who migrant farmers were. Before, they were mostly immigrants from China, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines. But the Dust Bowl brought a new type of migrant: white American families, including women and children. They came from states like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Steinbeck described them as once-successful farmers. They were "resourceful and intelligent Americans" who lost everything.
Steinbeck warned that old ways of controlling workers wouldn't work. He said, "these are American people." He believed American migrants would not tolerate the terrible conditions immigrants faced. He urged readers to find solutions that helped everyone.
Article 2: Life in the camps
Published October 6, 1936, this article looked at squatter camps. Steinbeck described how these settlements were built from trash. They were often near rivers or irrigation ditches. He focused on the dirt, poor hygiene, and uncertain future of the people living there.
Steinbeck showed how the Depression ruined families. He told stories of once-successful farmers. He noted the small hope new residents had. He humanized the squatters, showing their desire to educate children. He also showed the sadness of losing loved ones. With the "filth" and malnutrition in the camps, deaths were common.
Class differences still existed. Some families lived in slightly better conditions. Steinbeck mentioned children who refused to go to school. They were bullied by "better-dressed children." Teachers were too busy, and richer parents worried about diseases. Steinbeck believed the poor would only get poorer. He wrote that dignity and spirit would be lost.
Steinbeck also talked about the larger hopelessness. Social workers collected data but nothing changed. Diseases like measles, mumps, and whooping cough were dangerous for children. Country hospitals had no room for them. Poor people often didn't know about free clinics or were afraid to use them.
Steinbeck ended by saying these camps were just examples. Some were better, some worse. He asked for sympathy. If squatters stole or disliked the rich, it wasn't because they were bad people. He stressed that they were human beings who deserved understanding.
Article 3: Farm control and worker struggles
This article, from October 7, 1936, explained how large farms controlled migrant workers. Steinbeck compared big farms, which caused problems, to smaller farms that treated migrants better. Small farms often had to agree with big farms because of bank debts. If they didn't, they could lose their farms.
The Farmers Association had almost complete control over labor in California. This led to terrible financial conditions for migrant workers. Workers on large farms had to pay rent. This meant they lost some of their pay right away. Housing was one-room shacks for whole families. There were no rugs, beds, running water, or toilets inside. Toilets were usually shared septic tanks down the street.
Working conditions were very hard. A "pacer" kept workers moving fast. If a worker fell behind, they were fired. Large farms offered no places for rest or fun.
Steinbeck also described the "deputies" who stopped workers from forming unions. These armed employees kept migrants in line. "Resisting an officer" often meant being shot. Deputies made workers feel "inferior and insecure." They broke up all gatherings to prevent unionizing. This constant harsh treatment sometimes led to revolts.
Steinbeck concluded that large farms didn't want things to change. He said, "trails are too expensive," meaning they didn't want to improve conditions.
Article 4: Better camps for migrants
This article, from October 8, 1936, focused on camps built by the Resettlement Administration. These were centers for families from the Dust Bowl. Steinbeck described two camps, at Arvin (now Weedpatch) and Marysville. Each camp had about 200 families. To stay, farmers had to help clean the camp for two hours a week.
Steinbeck praised these new camps highly. He wrote, "The result has been more than could be expected." He said the goal was to give migrants back their dignity. He also liked how the camps promoted American ideals. "People in the camps are encouraged to govern themselves," he explained. They created a simple, working democracy. Steinbeck argued that with dignity restored, these men became "better workers."
He saw workers in these camps with "a steadiness of gaze and a self-confidence." This came from their new place in the community. They were no longer hated and vulnerable. They became active community members. Women formed "The Good Neighbors" group. They ran a nursery and sewed clothes for camp members. When new families arrived, they were welcomed and taught about camp life. Camp members shared resources and helped sick family members.
Steinbeck also noted the good behavior in the camps. For years, neither camp needed police.
Article 5: The struggle for help
In Article V, from October 9, 1936, Steinbeck showed how migrant families struggled to get help. They were never fully employed, so they always needed aid. Because they moved for work, they never had a permanent home. This made it hard to apply for help.
Moving constantly meant more problems. Benefits needed for survival required a permanent address. But migrant families couldn't stop long enough to get one, or they would starve. Hospitals were the most needed but hardest to access.
Steinbeck followed an Oklahoma family's medical problems. This showed how hard it was for migrants to get healthcare and welfare services. The family included a 50-year-old father, a 45-year-old mother, two sons (15 and 12), and a 6-year-old daughter. They traveled to California in their truck.
Their truck broke down, costing a third of their first earnings. This left little for medical issues, like the father's sprained ankle and the daughter's measles. With the father out of work, the boys became the main earners. The 12-year-old stole a gear to sell. The father had to walk to bail him out, worsening his ankle.
Out of money, they applied for relief. They were told they couldn't get it without a permanent home. Neighbors, also poor, shared food, but it wasn't enough.
Their biggest problem came when the 15-year-old son, their main earner, got appendicitis. The father went to the hospital, but all beds were full. Steinbeck wrote that hospital staff didn't take the situation seriously because he was a migrant. The son became unconscious and died before they could get a doctor.
The family sold their truck, their way of getting to work, to pay for the son's burial. The father returned to work with his bad ankle, paying for rides. But his ankle gave out, limiting his earnings. The daughter, malnourished, got sick again. The father found a private doctor. He had to pay in advance. After asking for two days' pay from work, he lost his job and went into debt.
Steinbeck used this family's story because it was like thousands of others. He said they could have been helped but had no way to get it. Steinbeck criticized California's approach. First, the state denied problems existed. Second, counties admitted problems but denied responsibility because workers moved around. Third, counties kept changing their borders to move migrants away.
The main problem, Steinbeck wrote, was focusing only on immediate money. They didn't see the long-term value of healthy workers. He showed this by talking about a hookworm problem. Instead of treating victims, they sent them to other counties, spreading the disease.
Article 6: Treatment of foreign workers
This article, from October 10, 1936, described how non-white or non-American migrant workers were treated. Steinbeck called it "a disgraceful picture of greed and cruelty." Immigrant labor was preferred over white American labor for two reasons. Immigrants accepted less pay and worse treatment. Steinbeck stressed that white Americans, with their "pride and self-respect," wouldn't accept such low pay and conditions.
California's farming needed cheap labor. Steinbeck found this terrible. Farm wages in the south were so low that white workers couldn't survive. Farm owners made more money because immigrants accepted lower wages. So, they always looked for foreign workers instead of paying white Americans fairly.
The desire for foreign labor was also about control. Unlike white workers, immigrants "could be treated as so much scrap when [they were] not needed." This was because they faced the threat of deportation. The "old methods of intimidation and starvation" used against foreign workers would not be tolerated by white workers. Also, since immigrants weren't citizens, they weren't protected by American labor laws. This led to a cycle of needing foreign workers, immigration, racism, and then expelling them.
The "one crime" big growers wouldn't allow was workers organizing. Steinbeck wrote, "They commit...the unforgivable, in trying to organize for their own protection." Once workers fought back, landowners didn't want them anymore. Steinbeck said the "usual terrorism" against immigrants was because they tried to organize.
The first major group of immigrant farmers were Chinese. They were brought to build railroads, then turned to farming. American workers disliked them because their "standard of living...was so low that white labor could not compete." Laws against Chinese immigration and riots eventually "drove the Chinese from the fields."
Next came the Japanese. They faced the same fate. Their "low standard of living...allowed them to accumulate property" while taking jobs from white workers. They were also forced out of the fields and the country.
After the Japanese came the Mexicans. Their low wages again threatened white workers. Besides racist attacks and changing immigration laws, Mexico wanted its citizens back. Many Mexican workers left California.
The last group Steinbeck discussed were Filipinos. They were mostly young, single men. This caused problems when they were with white women. Laws prevented mixed-race marriage, but affairs happened. This led to "a reputation for immorality...[and] many race riots." Like Mexicans, the Philippines helped the U.S. encourage their young men to return. In California, they often lived in "families" of several young men. They shared resources and food.
By the time Steinbeck wrote, "foreign labor is on the wane in California." The future farm workers would be white Americans. Landowners tried to treat the "new white migrant workers" like foreign workers. But Steinbeck predicted they would fail. White Americans "will insist on a standard of living much higher." Steinbeck believed white American workers, with "pride and self-respect," wouldn't accept the low pay and bad conditions that foreign workers had to. This set the stage for his final article.
Article 7: Solutions for the future
Article VII, from October 12, 1936, addressed the problem of migrant farm workers. Steinbeck said the "problem of the migrants" had to be fixed. This was important for California's farming, which relied on them. It was also important for human reasons, given the terrible living conditions of the workers.
Since migrants were displaced farmers, Steinbeck argued they should stay in farm work. He suggested the government set aside land for these families to rent or buy. Subsistence farming would give families enough food in the off-season. It would also give them a more settled life. Children could go to school, and communities could grow. These communities would have medical care, shared farm equipment, self-government, and "trained agriculturist[s]" to teach scientific farming.
Steinbeck thought the federal government should pay for this. He pointed out that the cost "would not be much greater than the amount which is now spent for tear gas, machine guns and ammunition, and deputy sheriffs." He was talking about the conflicts between farm owners and workers. He also argued that workers and unions should have more say in wages. They should also help advertise for workers. This would prevent too many workers competing for too few jobs, which led to low wages.
Critics said organized farm labor would ruin farming. Steinbeck noted that the same argument was used against factory unions, but industry survived. He did not approve of "vigilante terrorism." He urged the government to punish those who used violence. He listed the migrants' complaints. He ended by saying, "They can be citizens of the highest type, or they can be an army driven by suffering and hatred to take what they need. On their future treatment will depend which course they will be forced to take."
Important ideas in the articles
Workers and their fight for rights
Steinbeck described a conflict between migrant workers and large farms in California in the 1930s. California's farms were very organized and controlled by banks and wealthy people. Workers often paid high rent for small, poor shacks on these farms. Farm managers had great power over their workers. Armed agents enforced rules, sometimes shooting workers who "resisted an officer."
Steinbeck noted that this harsh control was meant to stop workers from organizing. Farm managers feared that unions would force them to provide better conditions. This would cut into their profits.
Steinbeck showed a lot of sympathy for the migrant workers. He was clearly affected by their poverty. He believed that the changes in labor in the American West were permanent. He argued that California should accept these workers. This would benefit everyone. Steinbeck concluded that poor workers could be "citizens of the highest type." Or, they could be "an army driven by suffering and hatred to take what they need." He felt a peaceful solution was needed to avoid a more violent one.
The importance of dignity
Steinbeck often talked about dignity, or pride, and how it changed based on how much hardship people faced. In Article II, he shared stories of families. He showed how their dignity was affected. One family always sent their children to school, even for a month. This showed their pride. A father tried to build a proper toilet. Steinbeck saw this as a sign that "his spirit and decency and his sense of his own dignity have not been quite wiped out."
As Steinbeck described poorer families, dignity faded. Children didn't want to go to school because they were made fun of for their ragged clothes. Families who lost children to sickness seemed dull. Steinbeck wrote that for the very poorest, "Dignity is all gone, and spirit has turned to sullen anger before it dies."
In Article IV, the camps built by the Resettlement Administration helped migrants regain their dignity. One rule was to help keep the camp clean. This gave workers a responsibility and a way to contribute. The camps also provided clean water, toilets, and medical supplies. This allowed for bathing and clean clothes. Steinbeck said the goal was to "restore the dignity and decency that had been kicked out of the migrants." Many families in the camps also grew their own vegetables. Steinbeck saw this as an uplifting feeling of ownership.
Different groups of migrant workers
Steinbeck's articles mainly focused on American migrant workers of European heritage. He called them "resourceful and intelligent Americans...gypsies by force of circumstances." He described them as people used to democracy and self-reliance. He argued that their suffering was unfair.
Steinbeck also described the lives of foreign migrants. He noted how they were "ostracized and segregated and herded about." Article VI went into detail about their lives. Chinese immigrants were known for their low standard of living. Their ability to live on very little led to white workers driving them from the fields. Steinbeck mentioned how they could save money, unlike white migrants. He also talked about anti-Chinese immigration laws.
Next, he discussed Japanese workers. They faced similar discrimination. They were seen as a threat to white labor, especially with the rise of "yellow peril" writings. They too were forced out of the fields.
- Dorothea Lange 1936
The largest non-American group Steinbeck wrote about were Mexicans. He said farm owners wanted "peon labor" to make more money. Like the Chinese, Mexicans could live on very low wages. This made them preferred over white labor. Steinbeck commented on how Mexican workers were treated "as scrap." They faced widespread abuse because the government could deport Mexicans who spoke out. He also noted how Mexican workers started to organize. But their efforts were met with violence from citizens, growers, and officials.
The final group Steinbeck described were Filipino men. He called them "little brown men." They came without families, which made them attractive as workers. They often lived together, sharing resources. Racism against Filipino men grew not just because they threatened white labor. It was also because of their relationships with white women. Laws prevented mixed-race marriages, but affairs happened. This led to "a reputation for immorality...[and] many race riots." With the Philippines gaining independence, most Filipino workers were sent back home.
Steinbeck mostly focused on the differences between these groups. He especially compared foreigners to white American farmers. He looked at their ability to live on low wages and to organize. He also consistently pointed out the violence against each foreign group. This violence was caused by the threat they posed to white labor and the system of industrial agriculture.
What people thought and its lasting impact
On October 20, 1936, Steinbeck wrote a letter in the San Francisco News. He responded to migrant workers who disliked being called "gypsies." He wrote, "Certainly I had no intention of insulting a people who are already insulted beyond endurance." But days later, the migrants' Camp Central Committee replied. They said, "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."
Steinbeck's articles quickly became important. They influenced studies of California migrant labor. His work built on and added to the work of economist Paul Taylor, photographer Dorothea Lange, and historian Carey McWilliams. McWilliams mentioned the series twice in his 1939 book Factories in the Field.
The booklet remained valuable for decades. Helen Hosmer, the publisher, remembered a copy selling for $500 in 1967.
Modern reviews of Steinbeck's text are mostly positive. But some criticize its narrow focus and racist ideas. James Gregory, a history professor at UC Berkeley, reviewed a 1988 edition. He argued that Steinbeck's harsh view of large farms ignored problems on small family farms. He also said that Steinbeck's focus only on struggling migrants could lead to stereotyping. Despite these concerns, Gregory called The Harvest Gypsies "a marvelous document of his time."
Historian Charles Wollenberg, in the 1988 edition's introduction, criticized Steinbeck's idea that unions were unavoidable. Steinbeck thought white workers would "insist on a standard of living far higher than that which was accorded foreign 'cheap labor'." Wollenberg called this idea ethnocentric and wrong. Mollie Godfrey, an English Professor at JMU, took a softer view. She noted Steinbeck's claim that "racial discrimination" was a way for rich farmers to keep power. She argued that Steinbeck's praise of white labor was mostly "tactical." However, Godfrey admitted that Steinbeck "attempts to combat economic exploitation of migrant workers by affirming their whiteness."
In 1999, Mitchell Stephens, a communications professor at New York University, led a project. It aimed to find "The Top 100 Works of Journalism in the United States in the 20th Century." Steinbeck's articles about migrant labor ranked 31st. This list was put together by thinkers like Morley Safer and George Will. In 2002, Heyday Books released an updated version of its 1988 printing.
What happened next and its impact
Charles Wollenberg concluded in his 1988 introduction:
Even the popularity of The Grapes of Wrath, however, did not produce significant public programs to assist the migrants. Foreign affairs and the coming U.S. involvement in World War II increasingly captured the nation's attention. By the end of 1940, reporter Ernie Pyle noted that the Okies 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 program. With the farm labor force no longer dominated by white Americans, little attention or sympathy was focused on social conditions in rural California. Not until the Delano strike of 1965, in an era sensitized by the Civil Rights Movement, did issues raised in The Grapes of Wrath return to the broad public consciousness. And not until 1975 did the state legislature establish an Agricultural Labor Relations Board similar to the one Steinbeck advocated in 1936.
