The Case for Land – Part 2
By HHR | August 3rd, 2009 | Category: Featured, HHR Contributors, Opinion/Reviews | 3 commentsby De’Von “Van” Weatherspoon
The world of the landed gentry is a beautiful world. Just to think of it brings memories of my summers in Georgia: the genteel get-togethers; the family church that your family has been going to for ages and that you go to regardless of what denomination you are; and above all, a responsibility to ancestors. This is what I think society has missed out on by the diminished role of the landed gentry; an incorporation of the past generations into the present and future.
On my Grandfather’s side, his GrandfatherI have learned my lesson, and will start out with my genealogy part deux. My Great-Great-Great Grandmama, who shall be called Fran, was a cook on a plantation. While she lived on that plantation, she was freed earlier. Her children, my Great-Great Grandparents, Grand Aunts, and Grand Uncles were the offspring of her and the Plantation owner.
The story is shaky, but the consensus is that sometime during his lifetime that plantation owner gave this woman about 50 acres of land. While not a lot, it allowed Fran to live comfortably and to send her children to school and college. This is a significant feat considering the state and condition of many contemporaries. Let us skip a generation and get to Fran’s Granddaughter Saddy. She married into a family of free blacks that owned about 400 acres of land. Her father -in-law had been a Reverend and was a prominent member of Troup County Society.
He had been born a slave. He was fatherless, yet he was able to reach a level of success that allowed him to have a business that employed the highest number of blacks in the county. He passed this business on to my Grand Uncle. My Father’s family owned farmland in Alabama and Mississippi. I am proud of my heritage; not just the black heritage, or the white heritage, but both. Without both, I would not be here. It is hard for me to hate or discriminate against white people because of what happened before Dr. King, because we are a family with familial ties that are thick. Both Branches of my family have been extremely cordial. That is all I will say to certain people to quell the amount of email I have received as a result of part one.
With intellect back on owning land; owning land changes people. I believe that it is one of the only things that make people think of how hard past generations have worked, and how hard the present generation should/must work in order to keep that bond to impress upon younger generations. Owning land and keeping in the family forces standards upon future generations; future generations know what came before them, and must continue to keep the same standard and familial prestige and ties after they are long gone. I again repeat that this is the role that the landed gentry served. The Jays of New York (From John Jay) have kept the same land that their famous ancestor bought. I’m sure it wasn’t always easy, but fighting is worth it in this situation.
If land that is in your family was a farm at one point, it need not be one now. Just the fact that the of keeping land or a hard physical asset that has been kept in the family, or is to be kept in the family, is enough to strengthen personal morals, should encourage almost everyone to own a piece of land. To show your children, or in my case grand-children (my grandfather gave me the family talk almost every week), the physical evidence of what ancestors fought bravely for, is a powerful statement and memory. I did not even realize how important it was that I could point to where my Ancestors are buried, the church my Great-Great Grandfather preached in, or the land he worked, but it is an amazing tool. All of this applies whether black or white.
From this moment, I have pledged to buy land to pass on to my posterity. I only hope that they will be able to imagine my story and the story of ancestors past who came to America, some in chains, but were strong enough to survive, go forth and multiply, and be able to have a sense of who they are from my actions and the actions of those before them. I hope you all take a similar pledge.
I do not know how, but the establishment of a landed gentry creates this. I encourage African Americans to buy land or face the possibility that all the struggle, the work, the achievements will be forgotten. The measure of success should not be how much you earned in your lifetime, but how great was the legacy given to posterity.
De’Von “Van” Weatherspoon is a high school student and contributor to HipHopRepublican.com. He is from the great state of Michigan and describes himself as a “Hamiltonian-Rockefeller Republican”.
on 
on 
on 
Black Students should review the history of Black land ownership and especially the history of farmland owned by Black people:
Is the black family farm in danger of extinction?
UW-Madison researcher documents a dying way of life in rural America
If the family farm in America is thought of as a threatened species, representing a way of life that is slowly dying out, then the black family farm can be regarded as an endangered species, teetering on the edge of extinction.
The black family farm is disappearing in rural America, says Jess Gilbert, a rural sociologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences. It is a victim of legal “shenanigans,” loss of land through heir property, and discriminatory practices by lending institutions and government agencies, according to Gilbert’s research.
The1999 USDA Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey revealed that blacks constitute less than two percent of agricultural land owners and own one percent of total ag acreage in the United States. Two-thirds of them do not farm their own land, but rent it to others, mostly whites. Gilbert and his colleagues want to do something about it.
“I work with the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and other black farm organizations in the South trying to preserve the land base of rural blacks,” says Gilbert, co-director of the Center for Minority Land and Community Security, a USDA-funded program jointly administered by the UW-Madison and Tuskegee University. The center’s main goal is to help minority landowners retain their land.
Black land ownership in the United States is almost completely confined to the so-called “Southern Black Belt,” a crescent-shaped area of 15 southern states extending from Virginia to East Texas and along the Mississippi river delta. Not surprisingly, this area coincides with former slave states, says Gilbert, who is studying black land ownership issues in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
“This is a huge issue,” says Gilbert. “The peak of land ownership for blacks was World War I, when they owned more than 20 million acres of farmland. In 1920, there were close to a million black farmers, about one-fourth of them land owners. Now there are less than 20,000 farmers who own less than two million acres.”
But not all of the changes have been bad for blacks, says Gilbert. The drop in some of the figures reflects the dismantling of the share cropper system and forced labor in the South.
It’s the unwilling loss of land Gilbert is concerned about. “The disappearance of black farms cannot be explained by general economic trends alone. Blacks are hit harder than other groups because they are small-scale farmers. Black farms tend to be between 50 and 100 acres, with less than $10,000 in gross annual sales. The size of the holding matters. Small farms decline at a more rapid rate than do large farms.
“The loss of land in the South as a result of legal problems still continues today,” says Gilbert. “Over half of black land owners die without leaving a will.”
Gilbert’s research revealed that black landowners experience discrimination by lending agencies that are unresponsive to their needs, reject their loan applications at higher rates than whites, or loan them only a portion of the money they need. In addition, historically blacks have not been represented in local USDA committees nor have they participated in federal government farm assistance programs to the same degree as their white counterparts.
In the article, “The Loss and persistence of black-owned farms and farmland: A review of the research literature and its implications,” published in the journal Southern Rural Sociology in 2002, Gilbert and co-authors Gwen Sharp and M. Sindy Felin found that despite the declining numbers and dire predictions-at one time it was predicted that by the year 2000 there would be no black farmers left in the U.S.-black farmers and landowners want to hang on to their land and make a go of it.
Pride and a sense of well-being are two sentiments blacks list as important dividends of owning land. But Gilbert and his co-authors have discovered even greater implications from their literature review. “The importance of property ownership goes hand in hand with active citizenship and social independence,” they wrote. Black landowners were some of the first to support the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Their children tend to be high academic achievers: many become doctors and lawyers. And blacks who own land contribute to the economy in rural areas by patronizing businesses in their communities and paying property taxes.
Some of the solutions that could potentially keep agricultural land in the hands of black owners include increased access to legal assistance, putting idle land back into production, better utilization of county extension resources and an end to racial discrimination in local USDA offices.
“For black farmers, agriculture must be a viable business, but it is also a way of life. Black land loss is a loss not only of potential income, but even more a loss of wealth, with deep consequences for social inequality and political power, especially in the rural South,” concluded Gilbert and his co-authors.
On the Republican and Democratic watch Black farmers have been abused – oppressed – disenfranchised.
Black Farmers Fight US Government for the Right to Farm
Did you know that in 1910 a total of 218,000 Black farmers owned 15 million acres of land, in 1978 Black farmers declined to own less than 4.3 million acres of land, and two decades later the numbers declined further to a meager 18,451 Black farmers owning less than 2.4 million acres of land?
By Denise Turney
Emerging Minds Magazine
Each evening millions of Americans will gather around the family table and enjoy a mouth watering home-cooked meal. Few will ponder how the economics of land ownership and the ability to secure farming loans decided which American farmers would be provided the means to work acres of fertile soil, earn a living from the earth, and grow the very food America will enjoy.
According to Oxfam and U.S. Agriculture census data, in 1910 a total of 218,000 Black farmers owned 15 million acres of land. By 1978 Black farmers owned less than 4.3 million acres of land. Two decades later the numbers declined further with a meager 18,451 Black farmers owning less than 2.4 million acres of land and by 1997 Black farmers comprised less than 1% the number of White farmers with Black farmers leaving the occupation three times faster than White farmers. What happened?
In 1982 the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that systematic racism implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) was a major cause of land loss amongst Black farmers. Namely it was discovered that USDA employees routinely denied Black farmers credit and information about USDA programs readily accessible to White farmers. The findings were so drastic the Commission noted that, absent change, by 2000 there would be (0) black-owned farms in America.
Nearly a decade after the 1982 Commission on Civil Rights report, Congress’s House Committee on Government Operations concluded that little had changed for Black farmers since the 1982 report was published. To quote from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, Ten-Year Check-up: Have Federal Agencies Responded to Civil Rights Recommendations? “USDA has done little to coordinate all of its civil rights responsibilities effectively. The department’s agencies have undergone reorganizations, name changes, and realignments; however, with inconsistent result. Overall, the Department has not made significant strides to address the Commission’s 1996 recommendations or improve civil rights enforcement.”
After years of having their USDA loan applications systematically denied or delayed, Black farmers joined together and filed a Class Action Lawsuit (Pigford vs. Glickman) against the USDA. Daniel Glickman was the Secretary of Agriculture under the Clinton administration. In April 1999 the USDA and Black farmers reached a settlement that declared: All African American farmers who farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996 and applied to the USDA during that same period for participation in a federal farm credit or benefit program who believed they were discriminated against on the basis of race in USDA’s response to their application and filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997 as well as anyone who otherwise satisfied the criteria for membership in the class action but who did not file a discrimination complaint until after July 1, 1997, shall be entitled to relief under the Consent Decree.
The Black Farmers Association states that the handling of the Consent Decree has been unsatisfactory. Namely the Black Farmers Association (http://www.blackfarmers.org/), founded by John Boyd Jr. and today presided over by Thomas Burrell, states that notification of the consent decree to persons meeting the class failed to adequately reach the eligible population. The Black Farmers Association has since filed motions in federal court noting the flaws and defects in the Consent Decree.
Persons contacted for purposes of this article to address the above complaints include: Thomas Burrell, President of the Black Farmers Association; Ed Loyd, Spokesperson for the USDA; Alexander Pires, Jr., attorney for the plaintiffs (Black farmers); Michael Sitcov, attorney for the defendants; and several members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Of the aforementioned persons, only Thomas Burrell, Attorney David Frantz, partner to Alexander Pires, Jr. and Charles Miller, Head of Public Affairs at Michael Sitcov’s office returned my calls.
Regarding the Black Farmers Association’s declaration that insufficient notification was made to persons eligible for the class, attorney David Frantz (Alexander Pires, Jr. was on travel) noted that there was no fixed budget to notify persons eligible for the class instructing those class eligible persons how to get an award from the consent decree. Plaintiffs’ attorneys retained Poorman-Douglas (www.poorman-douglas.com), a firm based out of Oregon, to administer the class action. Plan to notify members was then created and approved by the court. Black farmers were not involved in the creation of the Poorman-Douglas plan. Several law firms were involved in the case, many being from the South. Hearing on whether settlement of the class action lawsuit should be approved was held in March 1999 and approved in April of that same year.
When questioned about the resources used to notify class members of the consent decree award, plaintiffs’ attorney stated that from January – March, ads were run (this list may not be exhaustive): on BET, TV Guide regional editions, Jet, CNN, 15 general circulation newspapers concentrated in the Southern United States, California, Illinois and Kansas.
In addition to the notification process, another complaint with the process involves the criteria that must be met to receive the award such as the fact that farmers who file for the award must document their loan denial as well as identify a white farmer who received a loan the claimant did not receive.
As previously noted, the consent decree of April 1999 allows class eligible persons to receive an award of $50,000 and entitlement to technical assistance to help with the completion and filing of applications (required paperwork can be complicated). The class member may designate someone within USDA of their choosing to assist with completing the loan. Farmers seeking assistance with completing claimant forms may contact the Monitor’s Office toll-free at 1-877-924-7483 or visit their website at http://www.pigfordmonitor.org.
How many Black farmers have filed claims and had them approved? As of the third week in October, more than 44,000 claims were received and reviewed by the USDA, 22,414 claims have been accepted in the case; over 14,000 have been approved which is approximately 60% of the claims accepted and less than 32% of the claims received. As of October awards received totaled approximately $873 million dollars. There were 8 law firms involved in the case with attorney’s fees and expenses over a four year period totaling $15 million which was split amongst the 8 law firms.
Clearly a disheartening amount of discrimination existed at the USDA. There is a great deal of work yet to be done. The consent decree is a start, but not a cure all.
It is important to note that decisions on USDA loans are made county by county. Being that the USDA has a long history of systematic discrimination against Black farmers, it would appear to effectively monitor the loan process for farmers at large it would require a single non-USDA entity to consolidate all applications filed, denied or delayed in order to insure the process was, in fact, working. Throughout research on this historic class action lawsuit (the largest class action lawsuit in America’s history filed against the largest government agency in the country), it was this one item that proved most concerning. While typing this, the question remains as to what specific steps have been taken to insure the practices conducted by the USDA are not continuing even now or spring forth at some point in the future. Plainly, if regular court appointed review and oversight of local USDA offices are not adequately initiated and maintained; former behaviors could strengthen, if they have been eradicated at all.
Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman noted in USDA News Release No. 0001.99, “I want to make clear that this is not the end of USDA’s civil rights initiative. We still have more to do to ensure that all of our customers and our employees are treated with dignity and respect. . . . I want to recognize the African American farmers across the country who stood up for their rights. We are a stronger department and a stronger country today for their commitment to justice,” Glickman said. It was Abraham Lincoln who on December 1, 1862, said, “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history.”
It is widely understood that years of systematic discrimination by the USDA will take great, focused effort to eradicate. Mandatory training, continued review of local USDA loan officers conducted by outside counsel, and ongoing and consistent action by Black farmers, Congress, the federal Commission on Civil Rights and Americans at large will go a long way toward insuring these injustices are curbed and erased. Not one of us can afford for it not to be so.
Lawmakers blast USDA for blocking audit on alleged racial discrimination
By Ben Evans
WASHINGTON – Six members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, are urging the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture to explain why it refused to cooperate with a government audit about alleged discrimination against Black farmers.
The lawmakers said in a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer that the incident continued a “troubling pattern of obstructing congressional efforts to understand and remedy decades of discrimination against African American farmers.”
Keith Williams, an Agriculture spokesman, said the department had not yet seen the letter, which was dated Feb. 29.
“We would have appreciated the courtesy of receiving a letter before it went to The Associated Press,” he said.
On Feb. 27, Agriculture officials ordered auditors from the Government Accountability Office to leave its offices and told employees not to speak with them. The GAO is the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress.
The auditors were seeking information for a review now under way of Agriculture’s civil rights office, including whether the department had provided misleadingly rosy information about the office’s progress in clearing discrimination complaints.
J. Michael Kelly, Agriculture’s deputy general counsel, said the investigators called the department Feb. 27 morning to say they were on their way over. He said the auditors refused to provide information about what they were investigating or let department attorneys sit in on interviews with employees.
He said the department has been cooperating with the audit for a year, but will not let its employees discuss the matter until it gets more information.
Along with Sen. Obama, the letter was also signed by Reps. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee; Artur Davis; Bobby Scott; and G.K. Butterfield. All are Democrats.
Many of them have been involved recently in an effort to reopen a landmark settlement that the Agriculture Department reached in 1999 with Black farmers who alleged the department had routinely denied them loans and other assistance because of their race. Thousands of farmers won claims, but more than 70,000 claims were never heard because farmers missed deadlines for filing.
“For too long the USDA has failed to address complaints of discrimination seriously and protect the civil rights of America’s Black farmers,” the lawmakers wrote. “Instructing USDA employees not to cooperate with congressional auditors is counterproductive and entirely unacceptable. … It seems clear that the Department is trying to undermine Congress’ efforts to repair decades of discrimination.”
The battle continues………………………………….Democrats and Republicans serve the interest of the mega commercial farms and they get all the funding and tax breaks.