Please access the required reading here: http://www.iatp.org/documents/disadvantaged-farmers-addressing-inequalities-in-federal-programs-for-farmers-of-color
Blog 7 prompt:
What surprised you the most about this article? Explain the historic barriers to land that have been faced by minority groups. Describe recent court cases against the USDA and several pieces of legislation that are aimed at an equitable resolution to this issue. How do you believe farmers in South Carolina have been affected by such discriminatory practices?
I was surprised that steps have not been taken to fix this problem. By now, I would have assumed that these problems have been taken care of. I feel that it is a major problem that minority farmers do not receive the same benefits as other farmers. Another surprising aspect of the article was the statistics that were presented to back up the argument. They showed that minority farmers received a lower proportion of benefits than expected. For example, in 2007, minority farmers received 2-4 percent of the loans and benefits available even though they made up 8 percent of the population of farmers. These stats really show a problem. This problem has also been an issue historically. Policies such as the Homestead Acts gave people of European descent opportunities for good land, while these opportunities were not available for minorities. Additionally, Native Americans have been forced off of good farmland, which was sold or given to whites. Recently, court cases such as the Pigford lawsuit and legislation such as the 2008 Farm Bill have attempted to remedy the problem. The 1997 Pigford lawsuit provided payments to certain eligible black farmers who did not receive a proper amount of disaster payments. The 2008 Farm Bill included a Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Program that gave more opportunities for funding for disadvantaged farmers. Despite these and various other lawsuits and programs, minority farmers still do not receive the same benefits as others. Personally, I do not have much knowledge of South Carolina farmers, as I am from out-of-state. But, I would assume that they have been affected in similar ways as other farmers across the country. Minority farmers in SC probably have not receives the same benefits as others. I believe that this has had an effect on the farmers’ monetary output and standard of living. It also may have had an effect on their crop yields, as they may not have enough money to support crops as much as is needed. In the future, I hope that this problem can be resolved in South Carolina and across the nation.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that this is still an issue in our country. I feel as though this should have been handled years ago. However, as the article stated, many of the colored farmers are not growing "money crops." Although it is not fair that they are unable to receive the loans that they are entitled too and they have been penalized for years based on their color, they are not growing the crops in which they would make the most money. With that being said the situations reminds me of when a family goes to college. In my family my grandfathers both went to college and therefore it was expected of them to do well and be able to send their children to college. Although my father took the military path they were able to send my mom, and my aunts to college. It was then expected of me to go to college and have a brighter future because of the generations before me. Meanwhile, during the time that my grandparents were in college many blacks were denied acceptance based on color. They therefore struggled with finding jobs, making it harder for them to send their kids to college. For those that were not able to go the process is slower and unfortunately there are more hills to climb. The same goes with farming, for the families that were able to start good farms and have good land years ago they have had time to develop a systematic farming technique. Meanwhile, the farmers that were denied these advantages have had to overcome more. They should therefore be compensated for the past. Many minorities are compensated through my college example with scholarship opportunities, so why would farmers be denied compensation. Because of the high population of African Americans in the state of South Carolina I am sure that they have had to suffer through being denied advantages. On top of that they have had to deal with rough weather, infertile soil, and land development throughout the years. Although the government has done some to help these farmers they have not done enough through the acts and bills that have been placed in front of them. Congress should put a focus on helping to make sure that our country gets proper nutrition and can help support its self through supplying our farmers with what they need.
ReplyDeleteCaroline- could you explain the pieces of legislation/acts or laws that are being put in place to help this issue? What recent court cases are involved?
DeleteWhen I first read this article I was in shock. I had no idea that there was a social injustice or discrimination in the farming industry what so ever. The Homestead Acts of the late 19th and early 20th century effected this land distribution the most in recent history. This caused the Native American land acquisition. Asian settlers also had a difficult time receiving land due to Alien Land Laws and World War II alienation. A recent case such as the 1997 Pigford lawsuit, brought against the USDA by black farmers who claimed they had been discriminated against brought the issue into current light. With the injustice in the spot light it began to gain more national attention.
ReplyDeleteAs a remedy to many of these issues The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act and the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act were created to support farmers building innovative farm enterprises. This allows for more funding for the more rare crops which many colored people grow. The 2012 Farm Bill will help our nation greatly once it becomes fully effective. This helps those who help the nation as a whole.
I am not from the south but I can make a couple of assumptions about the farmers here. I would assume that because of the civil war history, the proportion of white to black famers is unequal. Because the whites have owned most of the land for hundreds of years, when the civil rights were activated it was still difficult for the coloreds to gain access to this land.
At a first glance at the article it is extremely surprising to me that in modern society there is still so much racial segregation. It baffles me that even in things as simple as farming, that have been going on for so long, there is still a divide between races. I completely disagree with the fact that any race or sex is being treated unfairly in the farming world. Barriers have been placed on foreign farmers in that white people have controlled most of the farm land since the time of the colonies and that land has been continually passed down from generation to generation. As a minority simply acquiring land to beginning farming on is not nearly as simple. The federal Homestead Acts are another source of barriers for minorities. It took land from minorities in order to supply the continually growing number of European farmers. The Farm Bill of 2008 is working to help those who have been descriminated aginst with grants and technical assistance to make reparations to the original problem. As I know little about the farming community in South Carolina it is hard for me to say exactly how they have been affected, but I would have to guess that it would have to be the same as the rest of the country or possibly worse based on the high number of minorities in the state.
ReplyDeleteThe most surprising portion of this article to me was the fact that the USDA identified, “expanding agricultural exports as a priority initiative”. This is surprising to me because, as Muller, Bustos, and Ackerman state, many communities that would be in need of government funding would not necessarily have the same goal of augmenting agricultural exports, but more focused on feeding the local communities, and would not have the means to support such an operation.
ReplyDeleteSome of the recent lawsuits against the USDA include the 1997 Pigford lawsuit and the Keepseagle settlement. The Pigford lawsuit was built against the USDA by African American farmers with the claim they were discriminated against by “facing unwarranted denial or untimely processing of loans and that the USDA had not been responsive to complaints of discrimination”. To investigate this claim, a USDA study found that from 1990 to 1995, loans received by black farmers were on average 25 percent less than that received by white farmers, and that 97 percent of disaster payments were granted to white farmers versus 1 percent to black farmers.
I looked up the results from this case and found that due to the complaints from 22,551 farmers, 69 percent of these claims were approved, leading to a total compensation of $1,015,607,449. This compensation includes the $50,000 cash pay-outs that were made to farmers as well as debt relief from IRS payments.
A second case, the Keepseagle settlement with Native American farmers was publicized in 2010, and a claims process was established for Hispanic and women farmers in 2011.
Although I am not from South Carolina, I believe that there exists a large amount of minority farmers here; therefore they have been affected by the discriminatory practices of the United States Department of Agriculture. For example, it makes sense that farmers in South Carolina would have a primary goal of feeding local communities, and therefore they would be at a disadvantage to apply for the funds set up by the 2008 Farm Bill, as it set a goal to focus on expanding agricultural exports.
What surprised me about this article is the support the authors used to show that minority farmers are being discriminated against. I understand that proportionally the percent of minority farmers is less than the minorities in the population; however, I don't think that directly means there is an issue. Minorities may have other lucrative jobs or incomes besides farming. Although, I do believe it is an issue that minority farmers receive less federal aide than white farmers.
ReplyDeleteThe overtaking of Native American land by European settlers and the alien land laws caused the demographics in farming to long largely towards whites. Also, the use of slaves in the South made it difficult for Blacks to acquire their own land. The 1997 Pigford lawsuit addressed the US government's discrimination against Black farmers who were given late or lesser loans than White farmers. The US paid back farmers who sent in a claim. The USDA created the Office of Advocacy and Outreach in 2008 to improve the distribution of grants. The Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act was created to help farmers build enterprises.
I grew up in Ohio, however, I can guess that the demographics of SC farmers is askew. Because of slavery in history, there are likely more White farmers in SC since Blacks had difficulty owning their own land even years after the abolition of slavery.
This article as a whole was surprising to me. When I think about the crop industry in the United States and the problems associated with it, I don’t usually consider racial inequality to be one of them. I see now that it definitely is. I think about the domination by big production companies and issues with genetically engineered plants and patented genes. I was also interested to see that part of the reason minority farmers receive less funding is due to the specific crops they produce. This makes a little more sense, but I thought the specific percentage of minority workers in different farming fields was interesting (“only 2% of oilseed and grain farmers and only 3% of dairy farmers are of color” and 18 to 20% of fruit and vegetable farms are run by minorities). Minority groups have had to overcome barriers in obtaining land to use for agriculture. This all started long ago during the land distribution practices in the late nineteenth century. The Homestead Acts caused European settlers to receive more land, and Asian Americans struggled for land ownership with the alien land laws after World War Two. The Pigford Lawsuit (1997) brought the inequality of loan distribution to the USDA’s attention, in which it was found that black farmers received 25% less on their loans than white farmers did. A measly one percent of black farmers was granted disaster payments. In 2010, the Keepseagle settlement was announced, dealing with Native American farmers. After this, attention was given to Hispanic and women farmers. In 2008, the Farm Bill created the USDA’s Office of Advocacy and Outreach, which greatly tries to bring education and technical assistance to disadvantaged farmers, as well as dealing with issues such as grants (this is the Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher Program). Finally, the 2012 Farm Bill has been established as an effort to promote fair treatment of the farmers in our nation. I think farmers in South Carolina have been affected by these discriminatory practices just as farmers throughout the United States have been. Initially, the discrimination may have been a little bit worse due to South Carolina’s history. When Europeans settled this state, it was a huge producer of southern crops such as cotton. Plantations were established and run by slaves (who were generally of African American descent), which were later granted their freedom. Some may have continued farming practices and experienced discrimination due to the fact that they were a minority.
ReplyDeleteMy sister used to work for a non profit organization called Vista Core. She worked with local rural farmers and helped them develop plans and farming methods. It is sad, but true that most of the farmers she worked with were of color, or of ethnic background. These farmers usually lacked the funds they needed in order to be able to successfully run their farms. They needed money for seeds, proper machines, labor, etc. It was my sisters job to go to classes, become educated in different ways of helping these farmers learn to better their farming techniques, then get them the assistance they needed in order to implement the things they were being taught. The thing that surprised me most about this article is the fact that there were law suits that helped women because they are a minority in the farming industry. Due to the days of slaves, and indentured servants, blacks are a minority and do not have the amount of land that whites do to farm on. The same goes for Native Americans because they were forced off of most of the land that they once had. This along with being minorities makes the farming that much more difficult. The article stated "the crops that farmers of color grow are clearly not where the money is." but i do not agree with this. Yes, they may not being growing the biggest "money crops", but they are still farming and providing fresh, local produce and deserve the funding that any other farmer would receive. I think it is awesome that there are programs out there working hard to make funds available for disadvantaged farmers such as the office of advocacy and outreach. The Pigford lawsuit was brought about by blacks who thought they had been shorted on their loans compared to the whites. It was proven that the white farmers had received 25 percent more than that of the black farmers. I feel that in South Carolina, knowing a little bit about the system with farming because of my sister, the loans are still hard to get for minority farmers. This largely affects the produce that comes from local farms. There could be way more if there were proper funding. In my hometown, we have several farmers who can not receive the funding they need, therefore they have to set up local fruit and vegetable stands to try to make profit. Most end up creating the farms for family use only.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know that I was honestly that surprised by the facts listed in this article about the demographics in American agriculture, I think I was most surprised by the evidence that the USDA and other agencies have actually been working against many minority groups seeking to become involved in agriculture even in modern times. One of the historic barriers to land ownership faced by minority groups was the homestead acts of the late 19th/early 20th centuries which gave large parcels of land to settlers of almost exclusively European descent, thus shutting out a generation of minorities to land ownership in many states. Other historic barriers include the alien land laws, incarceration of Asian Americans during WWII, the seizure and redistribution of Native American lands, and the discriminatory loan policies practiced by the USDA for decades. The court case of Pigford v. Glickman (1997) was an important case which found that the USDA had used illegal and discriminatory practices in their denial or extended processing of loan applications from black farmers. A settlement fund was eventually set up as a result of the Pigford case for black farmers that were victims of USDA discrimination; settlement funds for Native Americans and female Latino farmers soon followed as well. The 2008 Farm Bill featured a provision which created the USDA Office of Advocacy and Outreach, this office includes a special program for “Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers” in hopes of remedying some of the historic barriers to minority farmers. Two other pieces of legislation which are designed to help with the problem of farming inequity include the “Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act” and the “Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act.” I think discrimination and lack of access to land ownership and farming has impacted South Carolinians in the same way that it has would-be minority farmers across the nation, by restricting their ability to obtain lands or become farmers. I think this form of discrimination is a shameful chapter of our past and I am hopeful that in the future America’s farmers can reflect the true diversity of the American people.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I was necessarily surprised by the fact that there is still segregation, especially involving farming, however, I wasn't aware that there was discrimination in the farming community. To think that the nation we live in has 100% equality, a person must really be wearing their rose colored glasses or just that ignorant. Looking at the chart (under the paragraph 'Policy Barriers to Land Access'), the percentage of farmers makes sense to the ratio of their occupancy of U.S. population. Those who have a higher population in the country has a direct relationship to those who are the majority of farmers.
ReplyDeleteMinority groups have however faced barriers due to the history to the land. In the late 1800s and early 1900s the Homestead Acts effected land distribution. Due to this it has caused Native American land acquisition. Around the 1900s, Alien Land Laws and WWII alienation have been a causation of Asian settlers having a difficult time receiving land. In 1997, black farmers brought a case against the USDA, claiming that they had been discriminated, to which has brought this current issue to the surface.
Considering my residency isn't in the state of South Carolina, I can't speak from a first hand experience or knowledge, but considering the status quo of the majority of the south, one could assume that discrimination occurs here. Discrimination of farmers in South Carolina could most certainly be a direct correlation of the civil war. Although the war was decades ago, the racism was still passed on through generations. The fact alone that people still proudly wave a Confederate flag and that the state house had still adorned it not too long ago, is proof enough that this state has a long way to go. I don't know much about the farming community, but what I can tell from observations alone, I'm sure many different races that live here, face plenty of discrimination. If there is such a high discrimination rate for farming, I wouldn't doubt that anyone of non-Caucasian race experiences in South Carolina. It clearly is having an impact on people's thoughts and this racism is starting to stir among the nation, so I can't imagine that with such big commentary that people in this state are having an easy time.
After reading this I recognized already reading something very similar to this in high school. My initial reaction after the first times I read this was very shocking and surprised. To still have this kind of discrimination over farming is ridiculous, I could have understood this maybe fifty or sixty years ago but still today is ridiculous. I really believe that there should be a stand to these kinds of tings in todays age, by showing that discrimination still lives on today sets a terrible example for years to come in the near future. These groups that have been discriminated on have faces various forms of adversary dating back to the Native Americans. Coming back to recent years, a prime example in 2007 the farmers from disadvantaged minority groups only received two to four percent of their loans and other federal payments. African Americans also in that year claimed less than fifty percent of the national average payment from federal farm programs. This is clearly presented as discrimination against minority groups in farming at its finest. There have been recent steps that have been addressed to try to compensate these mistreated farmers. The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act and the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act are only two of the starting acts to help these average citizen farmers better job opportunities in the future. There has also been talk of the 2012 Farm Bill, which promotes fair treatment to all farmers alike when dealing with the federal farmers. As me being from the north and not being too familiar with the southern ways of farming, it is tough for me to really make an assumption of the farming discrimination in South Carolina. I do believe that there is a great amount of African American farmers that live here, but they have to face the more powerful white farmers that have been here for a few half centuries and have groomed their land very well. The only factor that hurts both of those farmers is the poor soil in recent years as well as the climate.
ReplyDeleteWhat surprised me most about the article is that America is having these types of issues still in 2012. I feel like our society should be way past the whole ordeal of race being some important contributing factor in business decisions. It seems almost ridiculous that this is a serious problem for minority farmers who simply wish to work and get equal government aide. The historical barriers that most minorities have dealt with for the past two centuries has mainly been caused by land owners monitoring the purchasing of land, as well as the federal government taking no preventive steps to ensure fair treatment. In the 1997 Pigford lawsuit African American farmers brought it to the courts attention that they were receiving unfair treatment in the loan process as well as irrational discrimination. The resolution that the USDA came up with is to compensate minority farmers who have not been given equal treatment throughout the years. Other measures have been taken to try and help minority farmers but nothing very significant in my opinion. In South Carolina as it is, I think that minorities have not really had access to good farmland in the first place so there is not much opposition to the all “European” based farmers. I don’t exactly see South Carolina as being one of those states that is willing to allow minorities fair shot at owning farmland.
ReplyDeleteI had never really given any thought to the demography of farmers, but this article broadened me perception of the plight of the minority farmer. Many of the obstacles this group faces traces back hundred years or more. The original division of farmland was established by the Homestead Act, and at the time, minorities were not even recognized as citizens thus eliminating their eligibility to reap the benefits of new territory. The federal government gives more subsidies to farmers that grow specific lucrative crops that are needed in mass quantities such as corn. Minority famers tend to grow a more diverse array of crops which are not part of government funded agriculture programs. The 1997 Pigford lawsuit highlighted this issue because black farmers were not receiving fair compensation to avoid foreclosures and damages. Congress created the Office of Advocacy and Outreach branch of the USDA in the 2008 Farm BIll which includes an outreach program designed to help the minority farmer. The 2012 farm bill, Beginning Farmer and RancherOpportunity Act, and the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act are currently in debate to help ease the tensions in this situation as well. I would imagine that South CArolina farmers understand this issue better than most because of the prevelance of rural land throughout the state. Minority farmers ar probably being pressured out of the business as industrial agriculture coupled with this discrimination discourages future generations to pursue farming. With the current economic crisis, banks are hesitant to loan in the first place much less to farming and even less to minorities (though it is disgraceful to say) which puts the minority farmer even in South Carolina at a distinct disadvantage.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I wasn't very surprised at this article. Our country has always done a fantastic job of claiming "all men are created equal" while segregation existed. There has always been ethnic issues and unfortunately they will probably continue for a while too. It makes me sick that we still have these problems today, especially since the people in context are hard working Americans doing a job to help support our country. The fact that we took tons of land away from Native Americans, gave it to white people, and forced blacks to work on it instead of being free men to have their own farms is just one example of historic barriers minority groups have faced. The settlement of the Pigford lawsuit in 1997 gave black farmers payment after being discriminated against in the USDA loan process. The discrimination included "loans received by black farmers were on average 25 percent less than that received by white farmers", a statistic that just shows how ignorant some people still are.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I was most surprised by the fact that grant money distribution is not as effective as I thought. I was disappointed to read that grant money does not go directly to where it is needed, but rather goes to those organizations who simply know how to apply for grants and what kind of wording to use. This seemed extremely unfair to me as well as somewhat pointless because it defeats the whole purpose of grant money. I think there should be more direct contact between organizations giving grant money and organizations/farms applying for grant money. For example, perhaps a person from the organization granting money should go and meet the farmer or the nonprofit members in person to get a better feel of the situation at hand and how the money would be put to good use. Maybe this method would more effectively eliminate unfair grant money distribution.
ReplyDeleteMinority groups have had little access to the best farming land because agriculture funding heavily supports increased production of commodity crops, which many farmers of color do not produce. These commodity crops include corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, sugar, and cotton whereas 18-20% of “farmers of color” grow vegetables, melons, fruits, etc. If farmers from minority groups were able to farm on suitable land, they could largely help promote and support health as well as grow more foods appropriate for a diverse culture. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) is one of the inequitable government agency groups. We can see this in the 1997 Pigford lawsuit brought against the USDA by black farmers who argued that the USDA discriminated against them by giving “untimely processing of loans”. Fortunately there have been efforts to make changes. A settlement to this lawsuit included payments to minority farmers due to untimely loan decisions.
There was another case where several Montana farmers filed claims with the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) under noninsured crop losses to perennial grasses. The FSA denied this claim under the FSA policy that all perennial grasses were not covered during the first year. In response, the Montana farmers appealed to the National Appeals Division (NAD), who then helped the farmers argue their case. In order to pay for this large expense, the Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) group funded the farmers with $17,943. This is a group who is committed to equitable resolutions. The USDA was also challenged with a lawsuit from Earthjustice and Center for Food Safety on behalf of Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club in September, 2010. The USDA had advocated the planting of genetically engineered sugar beets. With this secret act, the USDA bypassed environmental review in order to appeal to the industry for money’s sake. This is incredibly corrupt because the USDA’s responsibility is to protect public health and the environment, in which case planting GE modified sugar beets goes directly against these values. The USDA and sugar beet industry hoped to quietly evade the law by planting as quickly as possible. By promoting this act, the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because they didn’t first prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The good news is, there are organizations out there such as those mentioned above and the EAJA who are on the same team to promote equitable resolutions to the unfair treatment of farmers and the public.
I’m sure South Carolinian farmers have had problems with the USDA as much as farmers from other parts of the country. Thankfully the South Carolina Department of Agriculture (SCDA) is helping small farms in South Carolina to improve their marketing skills, increase their gross net income, as well as help these small farms to focus on community building, and understanding alternative land use. I think SC farms are heading in a good direction, despite the nation-wide problems farmers are facing.
After reading his article, I am honestly disappointed. The United States andher citizens pride themselves on being the "land of free" where equality prevails. It mas me really angry to see that after all these years of their struggles, that minorites are still getting the shaft. I guess we are not that far advanced as we think we are. My great grandfather as a chief of the Lumbee Indian Tride based in Lumberton, North Carolina. Although I never had the opporunity to know him, after reading this article I wonder if he was subject to these sorts of injustices. It sickens me to know that people like my greatgrandfather owned pieces of land for hundreds of years, and white people just came and took i from them. I am encouraged by the fact that there are Acts beng pased such as the 2008 Farm Act which has a provision in it for the outreach of minority groups of farmers. Also the Pigford law suit of 1997, which gve blak farmers payments for being discriminated in the USDA process in the past. I really hope these legal acts hve made a difference for minority farmers and I hopeit continues to. Being from PA im not sue how minority farmersare treated down here, but it would not surprise me to hear that they are recieving unequal rights. From my trip to Colorada, I know that a significant amount o their population are native americans and a lot of them are heavily discriminated against.
ReplyDelete