Black farms continue struggle for land, justice, rights

By: Chris Nisan

An interview with Black farmers’ leader and organizer Thomas Burrell

Note: The following are excerpts from an edited version of an interview with Thomas Burrell, president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association Inc.(BFAA). BFAA is one of the organizations that has been in the forefront of the struggle to win justice for Black farmers in their fight against racist discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The farmers are demanding that Congress make provisions to allow farmers who were denied compensation under the limited terms of the settlement of a lawsuit handed down six years ago to be paid.

That case, which came to be known as Pigford v. Glickman as a class-action lawsuit by tens of thousands of farmers who charged that the USDA had engaged in a pattern of historic discrimination against Black farmers. Daniel Glickman was secretary of agriculture in the Clinton Administration.

A federal judge issued a consent decree in 1999 to settle the case out of court. In that settlement, the government agreed to give each of the farmers who could provide minimal evidence of discrimination between 1981 and 1996 a $50K tax-exempt payment, debt forgiveness, and preferential consideration regarding future loan applications.

To date, only a fraction of the farmers who suffered discrimination have received any sort of payment.

Burrell (TB) began to organize around discrimination against Black farmers in 1975. On March 12, 1981, he and 25 other farmers from Western Tennessee, Eastern Arkansas, and Northern Mississippi staged a 23-day sit-in at the Farmers Home Administration office in Covington, Tennessee to protest racist treatment at the hands of USDA officials. The momentum from that protest was part of what led to the launching of the Pigford suit.

MSR: Could you explain the history of the fight around the lawsuit Pigford v. Glickman and the struggle by Black farmers for land and the right to farm?

TB: Well, the history around the lawsuit is a very sad one for African Americans in general, and for Black farmers, Black share croppers, and the heirs of Black farmers and share croppers in particular.

You know, we have had two very sad eras: one was absolute slavery, then after 1865 when Mr. Lincoln said, “you all are free to go certain in the southern part of this country. But those who had enjoyed the benefit of wealth as a result of the free labor of Black folks instituted this horrible system of share cropping.

The interesting thing about land is that in spite of the fact that we were enslaved, in spite of the fact that share cropping was a quasi form of slavery, between 1865 and 1910, according to census bureau figures, the African American community had acquired approximately 16 million acres of land. Now that’s 45 years after slavery when we could not read, could not write, and for all intents and purposes did not know where a college or a university was at. Our ancestors owned more of this country on a per capita basis 150 years ago than we do today.

When the judge, Judge Paul Freeman, who has jurisdiction of this lawsuit, certified the Pigford lawsuit, he based his certification on some historical data as well. His opinion begins with the phrase “40 acres and a mule.” We laughingly refer to this period now as the era when this government broke a promise to African Americans in general, and particularly the young men who were veterans of the Civil War.

When General William Sherman routed the Confederacy from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Charleston, South Carolina, and in effect checkmated the Confederacy, within a few days the Confederacy conceded defeat.

Sherman issued what became known as Field Order Number 15. The Black soldiers who fought alongside the Union Army received a track of land. As the story goes, when they divided that land up among the number of soldiers who were eligible, the amount came to the proverbial 40 acres and a mule.

Then, President Andrew Johnson, in an effort to appease the Union’s disgruntled brothers in the South, reneged on the 40 acres and a mule. They took the land and gave it back to the White folks, and we were forced to work for them again, giving them, in effect, free labor.

We maintain that this lawsuit, which was filed roughly 150 years later, is nothing more than an act of betrayal on the part of this government disguised as if now they are going to pay Black farmers for the admitted wrongs committed against them since the denial of 40 acres and a mule.

MSR: What are the issues in the most recent lawsuit? What are your demands?

TB: The second lawsuit, which is called Black farmers vs. Ann Venemon and others, is the $20.5 billion lawsuit. This lawsuit deals with what we call post-Pigford discrimination. And here’s what we mean.

In the Pigford lawsuit, in the definition of who could participate, there was a timeline which is known as the relevant time period. The relevant time period for Pigford is January 1, 1981, through December 31, 1996, meaning that Pigford dealt with acts of discrimination committed by the relevant parties within that time period. It did not deal with any discrimination the morning after, as we say.

This meant that farmers that went back to the USDA, who return for all intents and purposes to the scene of the crime, are being treated just as bad now as they were in the decades for which the Pigford lawsuit was intended to remedy. Business as usual: 40 acres and a mule –- act two.

Because of the flaws in the Pigford lawsuit, the USDA was never made to say that they would never discriminate against Black farmers the “morning after.” All Dan Glickman said is that “Yeah, we discriminated against you in the past.”

So then we are required, if we are going to survive on the land, then we have to create a political and legal atmosphere to ensure that those folks who stabbed us in the back between ‘81 and ‘96, and who are still at the USDA, those employees, many of whom have been promoted, won’t stab us in the back again the morning after.

The USDA said it would pay us for our flat tire. They didn’t tell us they would take the nail out, though. Our lawyer said he would fix the flat, but he left the nail in it.

MSR: After the consent decree was imposed, how did farmers organize to maintain the momentum around the fight?

TB: Now, that was not an easy job. That was probably the most challenging thing for me and this organization.

After the judge approved the settlement, we said, “Okay, we won’t fight it; let’s let it run its course.” We rolled up our sleeves and tried to notify people about the lawsuit, trying to get as many people to sign up, knowing in the back of our minds that we were going to be deceived again and the USDA was going to renege.

The settlement agreement contained a five-year statute of limitations. As we got closer towards the end of the statue of limitations, April 14, 2004, we decided we were going to launch an all-out campaign to circulate questionnaires to get the proof that we needed to show that this lawsuit was basically nothing more than the USDA reneging again on our rights.

When we did that, we came under attack. People said, “You’re trying to get the lawsuit reopened and there’s no way to get lawsuit reopened. The farmers signed a waiver and they’ve lost their rights forever.”

We said no! The consent decree says that; however, the Constitution trumps the consent decree.

Most people thought that the consent decree was cast in stone. We’re saying no, because our lawyers left out of the decree constitutional safeguards. We have a right to go back to Congress and put Congress on notice that this consent decree is a violation of our constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congress, not the courts, has jurisdictions over the Fourteenth Amendment, and Congress can trump Judge Freeman [the judge in the Pigford case].

Congress held its first hearing on September 28, 2004 and then another on November 18. There was a hearing in Cincinnati, Ohio two weeks ago and another one is being scheduled. We are getting ready to draft legislation which will allow Congress to revise this consent decree.

This is a result of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association going against the grain, and being fortunate enough to get some Black farmers and their heirs to support us.

We are membership-based. We don’t take any money from the USDA; we don’t take any money from any other special interest groups. We maintain that there is too much money in this lawsuit for it to be compromised by taking money from the enemy.

Our members agree with us, they support us — we pay our own way 100 percent. This is a paradigm for our people. There are a lot of organizations out there trying to help Black folk, but they’re taking money from the devil in order to do it. You can’t get the devil to pay for your breakfast and expect God to pay for your lunch.

For more information on the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association Inc. (BFFA), visit NBFA

3/30/2005

Source: Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
emphasis added
Return to: African Genesis || Black Nationalism