This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• Strong Oppose. See discussion below. DJ Silverfish 20:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

To my knowledge, this is called sharefarming in Australia. It is probably not the common term in USA, but from a global point of view might be more useful. One advantage is that all "share" agriculture can fit beneath such a title (eg. share-cropping, share-milking). -- Lisa 13:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC) ... I just noticed this article was moved from some other title but I don't know what it was moved from -- Lisa 13:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED dates share-farming only from 1927 and chiefly Aust., and makes it a subentry of share. It gives share-cropping an entry of its own (as share-crop) and date its from 60 years before. I do not see any greater generality; if generality and antiquity are desired, there is the actual European term metayage, which John Stuart Mill used, but which is now nearly obsolete in English. Septentrionalis 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I did several googlefights before I requested the move. But given US dominance of the Internet it is natural that the US agricultural terms would be more common than those used in other English language countries. So not sure that this would be a valid reason to oppose. -- Lisa 06:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is, in short, a relatively recent Australasian regional term. I see no suppport for the claim that it is Central European usage - as opposed to appearing in a NZA text about Central Europe. This move is improper, as violating Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English . Septentrionalis 17:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the guideline on national varieties of English applies within articles. The relevant rule here for the title is "use the most common name in English" which is clearly sharecropping. If the Google test results were even remotely close we could discuss the limits of the test. But these results are not at all close. Jonathunder 18:02, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

But is it about "the most common name in English", or a consideration of whether a group of similar concepts should be grouped under a superordinate category? Sharecropping does not mean sharemilking. Whereas sharefarming can include bother sharemilking, sharecropping, and any other type of similar practice. Limegreen 00:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's clear thinking Limegreen. I think the options are either 1. move sharemilking from here and put it in another article, perhaps include a link in "see also" section -- then possibly another article for sharefarming; or 2. perform this proposed move/rename request. Lisa 05:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I might be trying to go about this the wrong wy. I'm curious to know if sharecropping and sharefarming mean the same thing. Possibly they don't. Maybe it is worth creating a new article titled sharefarming and list sharecropping as a related article, like sharemilking. In any domain well known to Wikipedians there would be such a proliferation of information on such an all-encompassing topic we'd probably need more than one article. Thoughts? Lisa 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of spinning off sharefarming as a separate article. Sharecropping has significant historical meaning in the US. The term is used to describe not just a kind of farming, but the general social relations in the South from 1865 until after WWII. Calling someone a "sharecropper" is roughly akin to calling that person a hillbilly. While the term can apply to either blacks or whites, it is closely identified with oppression of African-Americans in the Black Belt Region. "Sharefarming" doesn't have these connotations. DJ Silverfish 20:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to share that "share cropping" by specific name means the practice of sharing crops from the same land or neighboring land in the U.S. in the Appalachian region. My family heritage is Scotch and Irish on my mother's side and English on my father's. No one was ever a slave-owner, nor were there any servants in our families. My father's family were military men going back to the U.S. Cavalry, Union Army, Teddy Roosevelts Rough Riders, United States Army, United States Army Air Corps. All from Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. The Irish side of my mother's family were immigrants who bought up land in the East Tenn. area. Share-cropping existed among white farmers of meager means who accquired land and used it to provide for their families. Scotch and Irish immigrants had no wealth to speak of except for their land. The were independant people who did not believe in slavery. Many areas of the south were like this. As these communities developed, they traded the crops between each other. The worked together to build each other's houses and barns and agreed to share crops AND livestock to keep the community strong - a long Irish and Scottish traditional heritage from the mother countries. My great-great Grandfather owned a lot of land and my great-grand mother's Scottish people became share-croppers on some of his land. Most of his land stayed in the family until great depression. At that time quite a flourishing community had taken root but poeple were unable to remain on the land unless he granted them rights. He divided a lot of his land among the people and gave them deeds so that they could own their homes and farms. Shared farming continued until my Grandfather's time - it included trading services for goods. He helped a man slaughter his pigs and was paid in enough hams, bacon and fats to get through the winter. People shared their resources evenly. When I was growing up there families still practiced this method of trading goods and services when harvest and seed time came - hay, tobacco, corn, and cattle. History books seem to make more of the slavery aspect and paint it in a negative light. Freed blacks had no place to go since their homes were on the land they worked. Their families were there. They stayed and took up the already well-known practice of share-cropping to keep from becoming homeless. Education in the southern and western states and terratories was seen as a frivolous waste of time when much work was to be done - regardless of your color. My mother was the first person in her family to graduate high-school and that was rare for a woman then - she was born in 1933. A picture of oppression is painted but that isn't how it was. Women had jobs to do, its how the family survived and persisted. There was no shame in it or sense of bondage or oppression. It is honorable to work even if you need to share resources to survive. Candace71 ( talk) 12:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Candace

Regarding the end of sharecropping in the U.S., it is currently asserted that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was responsible. The linked references do not make this claim, instead pointing toward increased mechanization. I am editing accordingly. TomSwiss ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Metayage System. -- Mereda 09:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The new edits to the into of sharecropping have removed the fact that it is a form of sharefarming. It needs to be reintroduced in the first line. —  Donama 12:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that theoretically sharefarming is a broader term than sharecropping, but it is such a neologism that I am not sure that it rates its own article. After reading what was placed in the sharefarming article, I have only had my opinion confirmed. Bejnar 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a neologism just because not everyone uses it. Sharecropping is just as much a neologism but is in use here more because the majority of en: Wikipedia editors are from North America. I never knew the term sharecropping as a child -- it was always called sharefarming. —  Donama 00:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Help*

I have a history report due soon. I think that the information on sharecropping is wonderful. Everyone has to pick a topic and i chose this. I got all the information and more that i needed. I thank whoever made this page. O and by the way, why do people always just say bad, mean things cant they ever say something nice???

new person now...i couldn't find anything i have extra credit due tomarrow and its 10:40 P.M.!!AND I FOUND NOTHING!i am supposed to find what share cropping is(i found that)who came up with it(didn't find)when it started(nope)where it started(nope)and nwhy it started(i made it up)!!!!so i had basically NO help.....and I am sorry if a sound mean but its true soo i dont kno how the person above me found everything for her report!

RESPONSE: Listen you lazy high schooler, there is such a thing as going to the primary sources. If you rely on Wikipedia (and only on Wikipedia) for your school assignments, you're FUBAR. Carry on... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.105.5 ( talk) 07:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is written in a haphazard manner and is overgeneralized in places. In some places it is written as if there is some kind of conclusive agreement on sharecropping as a system of land tenure, in others as if it only ever happened once. It needs much more nuance, detailing historical examples of sharecropping as sub-topics, rather than attempting to weave an "integrated" narrative. I think someone with expertise in history should be involved here, and this topic should be cross-linked out of agriculture and into Black American History, for example...thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.127.204 ( talk) 05:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. This article falls short specifically with regard to the Black experience with Sharecropping in the South. It almost touts Sharecropping in the US as a solution when all it did was further oppression and wealth inequality in the US. I have attempted to add some more racial and political context but there appears to be a very Pro-South/Confederacy type seems hell bent on removing the connections between General Sherman, slaves, the Freedmen's Bureau, Freed Slaves, Sharecropping and the ways in which they all worked together. Sharecropping was very much a system of oppression to all except land owners and I think we need to provide a clearer context and more holistic history than what is currently there. Cmacdonald86 ( talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Below is what I have attempted to add to the Wikipage but have had revised by another user with weak justification. I have posted on their talk page to see if we can figure something out but I wanted to post here as well. Below is my addition.

Following the Civil War of the United States, thousands of freed black slaves found themselves without means to support their families. The situation was made more complex due to General William T. Sherman’s Special Field Order Number 15, which in January 1865, announced he would temporarily grant newly freed families 40 acres of land on the islands and coastal regions of Georgia. This policy was also referred to as Forty Acres and a Mule. Millions believed that this policy would be extended to all former slaves and their families as repayment for their treatment at the end of the war. 3 months later in the summer of 1865; President Andrew Johnson, as one of the first acts of Reconstruction, ordered all land under federal control be returned to its previous owners. The then newly founded Freedmen's Bureau was tasked with informing these freedmen and women that they must either sign labor contracts (in some cases with their former masters) or they would be forcibly evicted from the land they occupied.

Essentially there exists at least 2 worlds in the US, the White American Experience and the Black or Brown experience. In the article as it stands slavery is hardly mentioned, forced eviction and forced signing of labor contracts is not touched on. The Freedmen's Bureau's strong arm tactics are not touched upon. There are a total of 7 references to Black people in the article, and only as a balance to white. i.e (white and black workers) that sorta thing.

Sharecropping was a vastly different experience in the US. And while it remains a fact that it was a vastly White force that utilized the model, that is solely because the newly freed slaves had 0 financial stability. But it was not a solution. They released their chains, set them "free" with nothing, and then re-enslaved them by forcing people to sign labor contracts, forced evictions, racial discrimination.

It's good to have some history on Sharecropping, but if we are going to talk about it and specifically how it affected things in the US. We need to openly talk about it, what lead up to why it was a "solution", issues associated with the "solution". We keep talking about "history" but we don't talk about history, we talk about White history. And yes some black families were able ot make something of themselves, but the majority remained impoverish and openly, violently discriminated against.

So IDK, maybe we need a subsection to discuss the racial differences or something but straight up removing the information with bad justification seems wrong. To claim that Sherman had nothing to do with Sharecropping may at the surface appear to be true, but that is hardly the actual case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmacdonald86 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Cmacdonald86 ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Sherman idea had no sharecropping component--there would be no landlords and no sharecropping. His wartime proposal was reversed when the war ended. Historians do NOT treat Sherman as a major player in sharecropping-. Inclusion weakens the article with a unrelated side issue. We need to base the article on published reliable sources that actually deal with sharecropping, not with hypothetical plans that never allowed sharecropping. (In the Sherman model there would be no white landowners who would share the crops.) Rjensen ( talk) 01:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I support the removal of that material. It is a synthesis of other material that is not supported by any single, or even better, multiple references. Providing an acceptable reference that contains the same conclusion, might change my opinion. Note also that your last sentence, is not supported by material in the Freedmen's Bureau wiki article, which itself is not really a reference. Steve Pastor ( talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reformatted and corrected some information to better reflect what I believe to be your intent. I had incorrectly linked to a president and there were some formatting and flow issues. To state that Sherman's action had no effect on the perceived solution to solving the freedmen crisis through the introduction of government supported sharecropping is not a point I can agree with. Sherman's decision was a radical solution that he put into action as an attempt to help with the racial issues. Yes, this solution meant that whites and blacks would live in separate lands, so by no means was it a fair solution, however it shaped public opinion and perspective. Johnson reversed the order by re-empowering the oppressors as he returned their land. As he was a Southerner and known sympathizer to the South. As the article currently exists it makes no reference to how it disproportionately affected black families and the abuses suffered due to that enforcement. Abuses specific to black communities. Essentially, it ignores the history in favor of a whitewashed version which glosses over slavery and the interconnectedness of race and economics in the US.

As for hypothetical plans, the plan was already in motion. it was not hypothetical, it had been realized and existed. The special order was overturned by an openly anti-black pro slavery president after he took office following the assassination of his president. It was a calculated decision ripe with intent to further subjugate blacks.

I am certainly happy to work with you guys to find a middle ground, but I am not the first to point out issues relating to race and POV in this article. What I don't understand is how you logic that Sherman had nothing to do with solutions to Post Civil war freedmen, when he in fact was one of the first to implement a "solution". One which held only long enough for a Pro Slavery, Anti-Black president to shut down. It's not like I am providing context that is 10 years before the period I am discussing. I am talking about something that happened shortly before our nation chose this solution. Providing some light context as to help people understand the role that race played and continues to play in the US. As for your rebuttal about the existence of sharecropping. Yes, that means that sharecropping would not have existed, that does not however mean Sherman and the data are not related to sharecropping or why sharecropping was decided on as a "solution".

If you would like to create a subsection in which that sociological data might be presented; since the US had a very different history with Sharecropping due to our injection of race, that is a potential solution.

Sociologist and author Ed Royce has written about this in his book "The Origins of Southern Sharecropping" and it is well known information within the black community. So, there is reliable data. Cmacdonald86 ( talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Royce's work will certainly be recognized here by me, as are nearly all wikipedia contributions that are properly referenced. His is not the only work on the subject, I note, however, after a quick consultation using the JSTOR database. Steve Pastor ( talk) 00:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I do no think that current Agriculture infobox adds anything worthwhile to this article. Here is a link to the guidance for info boxes. /info/en/?search=Help:Infobox. Requesting discussion of the suggestion that the current box be deleted. Steve Pastor ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)