[ Followups | Post Followup | Economics in Popular Film Discussion | Help ]

Re: Grapes of wrath

Posted by Jacqueline Heller on November 20, 2002 at 21:03:40:

In Reply to: Grapes of wrath posted by Dalisa Gomez on November 20, 2002 at 13:11:00:

Since they were sharecroppers they were endebted to the land that they worked. In a way they were forever renting it, or one could say they owned it but were in debt to the owners. If you cannot pay off debt, the person you are in debt to is entitled to take what you have in order to satisfy the debt.
I am assuming that the relationship they had with their landlord was one of a feudal contract. They gave the landlord the surplus (which he increased) and they got stay on the land. If they couldn't meet his demands, he can kick them off it.
I hope that clarifies what you wanted. All the best,
Jacqueline

Followups

Post a Followup

Name:
Email:

Subject:

Comments:
: Since they were sharecroppers they were endebted to the land that they worked. In a way they were forever renting it, or one could say they owned it but were in debt to the owners. If you cannot pay off debt, the person you are in debt to is entitled to take what you have in order to satisfy the debt. : I am assuming that the relationship they had with their landlord was one of a feudal contract. They gave the landlord the surplus (which he increased) and they got stay on the land. If they couldn't meet his demands, he can kick them off it. : I hope that clarifies what you wanted. All the best, : Jacqueline

Optional Link URL:
Title of Link:
Optional Image URL: