Share-Cropping in “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner as Form of Slavery

“Barn Burning” By William Faulkner
Author’s Name:
Institution of Affiliation:
Course Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Date:
“Barn Burning” By William Faulkner
Previously most parts were experiencing slavery. In this scenario, most masters had total control over their servants. After the abolishment of slavery, the governments and individuals expected that the enslaved people would be free to perform the activities they felt would favour them. Even though the enslaved people were free to perform their activities freely, they still lacked full control due to the poverty level they were suffering. For example, even after the governments banned slavery, most of the lands were left with wealthy individuals who were previously the masters of the enslaved people. Since the formerly enslaved people were poor and needed to cater to their basic needs, they were ready to embrace sharecropping which was an instance where they were granted access to small plots of land in exchange for a certain portion of their crop yields to the landowners rather than paying land rather than paying the rent in the form of cash. These instances were seen as a form of near slavery since it continued with oppression, as presented in Faulkner’s story, “Barn Burning.”
The following story summarises the instances in the late 1800s and early 1900s. One of the main values highlighted in this story is sharecropping. For instance, Abner Snopes and his family were living on Mr Harris's land in exchange for giving some part of the crops (Faulkner, 1938). This move was similar to the move which began at the end of the Civil War to the point of the great depression. The main reason for this move was that most of the small farmers were unable to make enough money which could help to maintain their farms since the value of most of their crops had drastically dropped. This instance also made the desperate farmers to lose their land. Most tenants were allowed to live on a piece of land for free, and they would offer the landowners a part of their farm produce. The tenants mainly embraced this move because the landowners paid them less for being tenant farmers.
However, despite employing this move, there were serious difference standards of the individuals that the individuals were living. For example, like the enslaved people, the landowners did not give the farm tenants houses that matched their work. For instance, despite the family consisting of many people, the landowner did not award them a house with enough rooms. For example, the whole family was supposed to only live in two rooms, which seemed small for them. Furthermore, the rooms lacked some of the critical amenities. For example, the room only has two beds despite the family having more than five people. This instance prompted some family members in pallets on the floor since they could not sleep on the floor. This instance shows that similar to the enslaved people, the landowners did not show any concern for the living conditions of the tenants despite offering them some part of their farm produce.
The other reason why sharecropping was a form of near slavery was due to the amount of farm produce that they were expected to provide. Even though mo...