Some Contemporary Myths and Challenges in Southern Rural Land Utilization

SOME CONTEMPORARY MYTHS AND CHALLENGES IN SOUTHERN RURAL LAND UTILIZATION Merle C. Prunty* Myths, whatever their factual basis in history, seem to die hard deaths. Geographical myths are no exception, particularly those couched in a southern setting. Numbers of geographers, including the writer, have at­ tempted to delineate and interpret the vast array of changes in land use in the South during the past three decades—changes that have produced richly varied landscapes which support sophisticated, economically sensi­ tive, operational systems. (1) Despite these efforts, geographical notions and viewpoints still abound that are derived from the region’s rural land­ scapes of the early 20th century. Thus, several college texts in economic and cultural geography, or treating North America, still utilize the “Cotton Belt” regional approach to examine southern land utilization. Even a geographer as articulate as John Fraser Hart, a “native son” and long-time resident of the area, has used several myths from a bygone era in his South­ eastern United States, after initially noting many dynamic changes in the area in recent decades. (2) The persistence of myths regarding the South has had, in my opinion, an unfortunate effect upon geographical analysis. Myths have tended to mask the reality of current conditions and to inhibit thorough investigation. Geographers in other regions and nations who are aware of the dynamism of the region in recent decades search in vain for a comprehensive delinea­ tion of contemporary rural landscape conditions. There still are many “unknowns”—new traits or patterns—in southern rural landscapes that need to be identified and analyzed. Since the late 1930’s, and particularly since World War II, rural land use changes in the region have been caused by a group of easily recognized forces: 1) urbanization, which has resulted not only in the numerical and areal expansion of metropolitan areas but also in the growth of many small and medium-size cities; 2) a decline in the rural farm population, both by migration to the region’s cities (and outmigration from the region) and by expansion of the rural non-farm population, as many rural residents shift their economic base from farm to city without changing their place of resi­ dence; 3) regionwide improvements in public road systems, which have resulted in both population mobility and market accessibility of entirely new dimensions; 4) introduction of new crops and forages, plus new markets for the products of farm and forest; 5) the technological revolution in agri­ culture which, while nationwide, has been especially dramatic in the South because the region’s farms were less mechanized than elsewhere at the ♦Dr. Prunty is Alum ni Foundation Distinguished Professor of Geography at the U n i­ versity of Georgia, Athens. The paper was accepted for publication in June 1970. 2 S o u t h e a s t e r n G e o g r a p h e r close of World War II; and 6) pervasive effects of national agricultural and land use policies, represented by the Agricultural Adjustments Acts, land retirement programs such as the “Soil Bank,” feed grain control pro­ grams and others. These political forces have been tremendously powerful in modifying the land use components of the region during the past 30 years. Although identifying these forces is fairly easy, delineating their inter­ actions within the current matrix of regional land use conditions is far more difficult. Their relative impacts have varied widely from place to place in recent years. We may expect this regional dynamism in land use conditions to continue and to produce traits in the years ahead that are not evident now. The purpose of this discussion is two-fold: to lay to rest, if possible, a few persistent old myths; and to spotlight some contemporary facets of the South’s rural landscapes that are not as well understood as they should be. CHANGES IN POPULATION AND LANDHOLDINGS. In 1940 the popu­ lation of the Southeast was 30,163,803, of which 27.5 percent was Negro and only 31.8 percent was urban. (3) By 1960 the population had grown to 38,754,215, was about 23.2 percent Negro and—by Bureau of the Census definition...