Mechanical Harvesting, Globalization, and the Fate of Citrus Farmworkers in Florida and São Paulo, 1965–1985

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY International Labor and Working-Class History Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1017/S0147547922000230
Terrell James Orr
{"title":"Mechanical Harvesting, Globalization, and the Fate of Citrus Farmworkers in Florida and São Paulo, 1965–1985","authors":"Terrell James Orr","doi":"10.1017/S0147547922000230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper explores an obsolescence of labor that did not take place. In the 1960s, Florida's citrus growers appeared poised to accompany farmers across the South in pursuing a strategy of agricultural modernization that would mechanize their harvesting labor, rendering obsolete the thirty thousand Black and white farmworkers who harvested the orange crop. Their efforts were coordinated by the Florida Citrus Commission's Harvesting Research and Development Committee (HRDC), a rotating group of growers, trade association representatives, researchers, and engineers, who were confident that mechanization was within their grasp. But two decades later, every Florida orange was harvested by hand and HRDC's funding had been gutted. Why did growers think that mechanizing harvesting labor was both necessary and imminent? And then why, within only two decades, did they make such an about-face, largely abandoning the project of mechanization? The answer, I argue, lies in the particularities of the citrus industry's experience of globalization. At the level of capital, Florida's growers were caught flat-footed by competition from the nascent citrus industry of the State of São Paulo, Brazil; and at the level of labor, immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, and Haiti swelled the ranks of available workers. The narrative moves between Florida and São Paulo, examining the efforts of growers to control, monitor, and replace farmworkers, and farmworkers’ response, with the efforts and commentary of the HRDC providing the unifying thread. The argument is shown to bear on (1) the historiography of the South's agricultural modernization and (2) the historiography of the South's globalization (the “Nuevo South”), showing that it is necessary to join these two rarely connected historiographies to understand Florida's citrus industry, whose mechanization efforts spanned the 1960s histories of agricultural modernization and the 1980s histories of globalization.","PeriodicalId":14353,"journal":{"name":"International Labor and Working-Class History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Labor and Working-Class History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0147547922000230","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper explores an obsolescence of labor that did not take place. In the 1960s, Florida's citrus growers appeared poised to accompany farmers across the South in pursuing a strategy of agricultural modernization that would mechanize their harvesting labor, rendering obsolete the thirty thousand Black and white farmworkers who harvested the orange crop. Their efforts were coordinated by the Florida Citrus Commission's Harvesting Research and Development Committee (HRDC), a rotating group of growers, trade association representatives, researchers, and engineers, who were confident that mechanization was within their grasp. But two decades later, every Florida orange was harvested by hand and HRDC's funding had been gutted. Why did growers think that mechanizing harvesting labor was both necessary and imminent? And then why, within only two decades, did they make such an about-face, largely abandoning the project of mechanization? The answer, I argue, lies in the particularities of the citrus industry's experience of globalization. At the level of capital, Florida's growers were caught flat-footed by competition from the nascent citrus industry of the State of São Paulo, Brazil; and at the level of labor, immigrants from Mexico, Guatemala, and Haiti swelled the ranks of available workers. The narrative moves between Florida and São Paulo, examining the efforts of growers to control, monitor, and replace farmworkers, and farmworkers’ response, with the efforts and commentary of the HRDC providing the unifying thread. The argument is shown to bear on (1) the historiography of the South's agricultural modernization and (2) the historiography of the South's globalization (the “Nuevo South”), showing that it is necessary to join these two rarely connected historiographies to understand Florida's citrus industry, whose mechanization efforts spanned the 1960s histories of agricultural modernization and the 1980s histories of globalization.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1965-1985年,佛罗里达和圣保罗柑橘农场工人的机械收获、全球化和命运
摘要:本文探讨了未发生的劳动过时现象。在20世纪60年代,佛罗里达的柑橘种植者似乎准备与整个南方的农民一起推行农业现代化战略,使他们的收获劳动机械化,使收割橙子的3万名黑人和白人农场工人过时。他们的努力得到了佛罗里达柑橘委员会收获研究与发展委员会(HRDC)的协调,该委员会是一个由种植者、行业协会代表、研究人员和工程师组成的轮流小组,他们相信机械化在他们的掌握之中。但二十年后,佛罗里达的每一个橙子都是手工采摘的,HRDC的资金也被掏腰包了。为什么种植者认为机械化收割劳动既是必要的,也是迫在眉睫的?那么,为什么在短短二十年的时间里,他们做出了这样的转变,基本上放弃了机械化项目?我认为,答案在于柑橘产业全球化经历的特殊性。在资本层面,佛罗里达州的种植者被来自巴西圣保罗州(State of o Paulo)新兴柑橘产业的竞争打了个措手不及;在劳动力方面,来自墨西哥、危地马拉和海地的移民扩大了可用工人的队伍。故事在佛罗里达州和圣保罗之间展开,考察了种植者控制、监督和取代农场工人的努力,以及农场工人的反应,HRDC的努力和评论提供了统一的线索。这一论点涉及(1)南方农业现代化史学和(2)南方全球化史学(“新南方”),表明有必要将这两种很少联系的史学结合起来,以了解佛罗里达州的柑橘产业,其机械化努力跨越了20世纪60年代的农业现代化史和20世纪80年代的全球化史。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: ILWCH has an international reputation for scholarly innovation and quality. It explores diverse topics from globalisation and workers’ rights to class and consumption, labour movements, class identities and cultures, unions, and working-class politics. ILWCH publishes original research, review essays, conference reports from around the world, and an acclaimed scholarly controversy section. Comparative and cross-disciplinary, the journal is of interest to scholars in history, sociology, political science, labor studies, global studies, and a wide range of other fields and disciplines. Published for International Labor and Working-Class History, Inc.
期刊最新文献
The Worlds of Labor in Ghana’s Gold Mining Industry, c. 1895–1957 Pacifying the Battlefield of Industry: Warfare and Social Rights in 1848 France Gender and Deindustrialization: A Transnational Historiographical Review Japan’s Forgotten Korean Forced Laborers: The Search for Hidden Wartime Graves in Hokkaido Team–Work: The Olympics 1925 and 1931
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1