Question

document 2: henry bloke, little rock, arkansas federal writers project, united states work projects administration; manuscript division, library of congress (1938)
document 2 - document analysis questions:

1. sourcing: what is the perspective of the speaker on this subject?

henry bloke, a freedman from arkansas, describes how sharecropping limited his freedom in these words.
after freedom, we worked on shares a while.... when we worked on shares, we couldnt make nothing, just overalls and something to eat. half went to the other man and you would destroy your half, if you werent careful. a man that didnt know how to count would always lose. he might lose anyhow. they didnt give no itemized statement. no, you just had to take their word. they never give you no details. no matter how good account you kept, you had to go by their account, and, brother, im tellin you the truth about this. its been that way for a long time. you had to take the white mans word on everything. anything you wanted, you could get it if you were a good hand. you could get anything you wanted as long as you worked. if you didnt make no money, thats all right; they would advance you more. but you better not leave em, you better not try to leave and get caught. theyd keep you in debt. they were sharp. christmas - time, you could take up twenty - dollars, in something to eat and as much as you wanted in whiskey. you could buy a gallon of whiskey. anything that kept you a slave because he was always right and you were always wrong if there was a difference. if there was an argument, he would get mad and there would be a shooting - take place. but if you werent a good hand, hed just let you have enough to keep you alive.

1. close reading and analysis: based on this source, what claims can you make about the impact of sharecropping on african americans? write at least two claims below and evidence from the text above that support your claims.
2. close reading and analysis: according to the speaker, was sharecropping a system that provided healing and/or justice to all during reconstruction? why or why not?

Explanation:

1. The speaker is a share - cropper, as he describes the life and constraints of share - cropping.
2. Claims about impact on African Americans:

• Economic exploitation: "When we worked on shares, we couldn't make nothing, just overalls and something to eat. Half went to the other man and you would destroy your half, if you weren't careful." This shows that share - croppers made very little money, with a large portion of their produce going to the landowner.
• Debt - peonage: "They'd keep you in debt. They were sharp." Share - croppers often ended up in debt to the landowners, which restricted their freedom.

1. Share - cropping did not provide healing or justice. The speaker mentions that share - croppers were in a cycle of debt and economic dependence. They had little control over their earnings and were at the mercy of the landowners. For example, "They never give you no details. No account, you just had to take their word" shows a lack of fairness and transparency in the system.

Answer:

1. The speaker is a share - cropper.
2. Claims: Economic exploitation (little money made, large portion to landowner); Debt - peonage (kept in debt). Evidence: "When we worked on shares, we couldn't make nothing... Half went to the other man"; "They'd keep you in debt. They were sharp."
3. No. Reason: Share - croppers were in a cycle of debt and economic dependence with lack of fairness and transparency (e.g., "They never give you no details. No account, you just had to take their word").