|
Bush says: Screw the Black Farmers!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Ehh, they're few and far between, so who needs 'em? Right George?
| quote: | July 20, 2004 | Back Issues « previous |
Report Reveals Bush Administration Has Blocked Court-Approved Payments to Black Farmers
Aggressive legal tactics by the Bush administration have deliberately undermined a landmark 1997 civil rights settlement with African-American farmers, turning the claims process into another chapter in a long history of discriminatory treatment by the US Department of Agriculture.
A report released today by Environmental Working Group (EWG) and the National Black Farmers Association (NBFA) finds that almost nine out of 10 black farmers have been denied compensation for discrimination over USDA crop loans, even though U.S. District Court for the District Columbia -- in approving the settlement -- had described compensation payment as "automatic." Instead the USDA, under the leadership of President Bush's Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, has withheld three-quarters of the $2.3 billion agreed to in the settlement.
"The USDA aggressively fought black farmers," said EWG's Ariane Callendar, a lead author of the report. The investigation found that USDA paid $12 million dollars to US Department of Justice lawyers for 56,000 hours spent contesting the claims of 129 black farmers.
"That means the Department of Justice spent on average 460 hours attacking each farmer," says Callendar. And these figures, she says, represent only a small portion of the time and energy expended to avoid paying the aggrieved farmers. USDA managed to deny payment to 82,000 of the 94,000 African-American farmers who sought restitution.
African-American farmers brought suit against USDA in 1997 in an historic civil rights case known as Pigford V. Glickman (now titled Pigford V. Veneman), claiming that USDA systematically discriminated against African-Americans by denying them crop loans readily made available to comparable white farmers.
The Reagan administration eliminated the USDA's Office of Civil Rights in 1982, leaving African-American farmers no avenue for appealing loan denials they believed to be discriminatory.
In 1996, the Clinton administration re-established USDA's office of Civil Rights, and in 1997 made an admission of discrimination in its own study of USDA operations. Finalized under Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, the settlement was based on USDA's 1997 civil rights study, coupled with the absence of any recourse for black farmers to discriminatory practices from 1982 to 1996.
Over the past 20 years, the number of farms operated by African-Americans has plummeted from 54,367 in 1982 to 29,090 in 2002 (the suit included 94,000 farmers because many farms have more than one farmer). This dramatic decline, the report concludes, has been due in part to lack of equal access to USDA loans.
The report details "the willful obstruction of justice by USDA" and demands immediate action by Congress. "Only Congress can make whole the 82,000 farmers who were denied restitution arbitrarily, after USDA had agreed, in settling the case, that their discrimination claims were valid." [1]
SOURCES:
[1] EWG report, Jul. 20, 2004.
http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000157.php |
|
|
|
| Seventil |
| Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that there is a National Black Farmers Association? |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
I'm disturbed that there are any racial associations.
I'd say that 9 out of 10 members of the National White Farmers Association (NWFA) would say that the NBFA is complaining too much. Oh wait there isn't a NWFA because that would be considered racist. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
I'm disturbed that there are any racial associations.
I'd say that 9 out of 10 members of the National White Farmers Association (NWFA) would say that the NBFA is complaining too much. Oh wait there isn't a NWFA because that would be considered racist. |
Good point. And I'm sure if above referenced actions(I didn't even read the article, Opus) had been undertaken by a Democrat, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!:disbelief |
|
|
| Seventil |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
I'm disturbed that there are any racial associations.
I'd say that 9 out of 10 members of the National White Farmers Association (NWFA) would say that the NBFA is complaining too much. Oh wait there isn't a NWFA because that would be considered racist. |
Glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks that way. ;) |
|
|
| JM |
its so true about what you guys said above. these "minority" associations - i have no problem with. what i have a problem with is that if i wanted to start a "white student union" at my university, i'm sure as hell that that the black kids would come by and have a problem with it, just like they did during the famous "affirmative action bake sale" held by the college Republicans at the University of Washington.
this made national news - the college Republicans were making a statement during this bake sale, peacefully, when a bunch of big ass black students walked up, turned over the tables, threw the cookies on the ground, tore down to signs and threathened. how's that for civility, (and equal rights).
yet, when they hold their meetings, and so forth, i dont see any whites even coming close to debate cos that would make us racists.
ing bulle.
>JM< |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
No offense to any of you individuals that feel that a National Black Farmers Association should not exist or is dubious in its existence, but ask yourselves why it exists. Why does the NAACP exist, CORE, Urban League, the National Organization for Women, etc. I think my point might slowly be rising to the surface. They exist because they tend to attempt to address an issue of inequity in many facets and race or sex is just one of those inequities.
If you feel that there should be a National White Farmers Association then more power to you on that, but ask yourself this, what makes you think that it does not exist, from a historical context :stongue: In an industry today that is a struggle for many farmers, black farmers have a doubly severe problem with acquiring loans for their farms and machineries, they therefore find it necessary to unite to get a stronger voice in support of them.
As for JM who feels that white student associations are an affront to minorities by its existence, which world are you in. There are many college campuses across this nation where there are numerous white student organizations, my university included. To take one story and generalize it to the entire spectrum of universities is ludicrous at best.
Sadly in this nation we have a compulsive obsession with the race of people above other qualities, maybe just maybe one day that will change, as for now stereotypes, cliches and ignorance are the hallmarks of our society in first identifying people. We have come a long way however, thank goodness for that. I personally am black but as I have stated on numerous occassions can give two s about someone's race because my mentality is one of being open to other people through respect and dignity and only expect likewise. |
|
|
| rainbow_marble |
inequity my ass. you must be either non-white racist or a socialist.
the wealthy white man is the one who doesnt feel 'equity'.
reasons (off the top of my head):
1) they get taxed the hardest so they can buy meals/crack for lazy/idiot/democrat-crackheads
2) won't get selected over a minority for a job even if he has slightly better credientials
3) if he offends a black person on the job, will be fired from his job, yet if the opposite happened, nothing would result.
4) cant start a WHITE ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION (haha)
I dont care or anything... I'm just stating. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by rainbow_marble
inequity my ass. you must be either non-white racist or a socialist.
the wealthy white man is the one who doesnt feel 'equity'.
reasons (off the top of my head):
1) they get taxed the hardest so they can buy meals/crack for lazy/idiot/democrat-crackheads
2) won't get selected over a minority for a job even if he has slightly better credientials
3) if he offends a black person on the job, will be fired from his job, yet if the opposite happened, nothing would result.
4) cant start a WHITE ENTERTAINMENT TELEVISION (haha)
I dont care or anything... I'm just stating. |
Ever so often an individual like you comes along that defies the realms of human ignorance, arrogance and stupidity. You lay claim to the fact that minorities always scream about race if you arent't PC with them yet what are you doing by accusing others of being non-white racists. You resort to the same destitute words that the meal/crack for lazy/idiot/democrat-crackheads indulge in.
You bring up the issue of affirmative action, one which has no part in any of the posts in here and which I find to be a pretty dumb policy in that it does not benfit minorities overall, but a select few individuals. So go elsewhere with your rants about that.
On the issue of offending minorities on a job, seems to me like you have a personal story that has your own profound bitterness in it. If you think its okay to offend someone and it be looked over then it says a lot about you as well. Which comes back to my original post of RESPECT. Whoever the hell you are that is more important than anything else in dealing with others. If you feel so agregiously offended by a minority then maybe you should pursue the means to deal with it, just like the socialists, crackhead, lazy, whiny minorities do:rolleyes:
On your last pathetic statement about not being able to start a White Entertainment Television, who is stopping you. It will amount to just one more channel on the dial, just like BET, which is one of the most pathetic channels because it shows nothing but hip-hop videos for most of the time, whose values I truly find disdainful at best. What a wonderful contribution to the black community that is:rolleyes:
For someone who doesn't care or anything, just stating,you certainly apply the labels pretty well about others. Forgive me for I must have underestimated the struggles of the wealthy, white male in America:)
Welcome to the political forum my friend and about this phrase from you at the beginning "inequity my ass. you must be either non-white racist or a socialist.
the wealthy white man is the one who doesnt feel 'equity'
Actually I am a black, educated, male who beilieves in what it is to be American. Hard working, capitalist, individualist. So spare me the lackey statemts about non-white racist and socialist, I am amazed that you didn't mention that I was un-American as well. Now ask yourself what are you. Enjoy your time in the Political forum don't let it be short. I await your response. Maybe next time you will have examples for your bland stereotypes in your post. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
sigh.......
since when and who made this thread turn into racist thread.
We all know it has to do with constituency and not race.
You know Bush could give a for old people as well...So why not make a thread about how he doesnt appeal to them as well..
Geeez man...Especially You NYCtrancefan: Dont turn this into a race war for sake. Ive seen you post tons of intelligent responses. But dont let one word in this issue get to you.
Its politics and it will sting you. |
|
|
| NYCTrancefan |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
sigh.......
since when and who made this thread turn into racist thread.
We all know it has to do with constituency and not race.
You know Bush could give a for old people as well...So why not make a thread about how he doesnt appeal to them as well..
Geeez man...Especially You NYCtrancefan: Dont turn this into a race war for sake. Ive seen you post tons of intelligent responses. But dont let one word in this issue get to you.
Its politics and it will sting you. |
You are correct speed, I might be a bit too sensitive. I just get pretty riled up on the subject of race, especially when people attempt to question your particular beliefs and label you because I hate to see the generalizations that tend to spew from the subject, as though everyone is cut from the same cloth. I also go out of my way to point out that my take on things is that I deal with people as individuals, not as a race or ethnic background. This ends my discussion on the subject. Politics anyone:D |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by BadBadNeil
I'm disturbed that there are any racial associations. |
Why is that disturbing? The reason minorities need to group together in associations is precisely because they are minorities. If there is an imbalance of power, then such associations amongst the subverted are the only way of redressing this power. I know it's chic to criticse political correctness - and it has it coming with its inherent contradictions and baseless moralisms - but just because political correctness is a failure it doesn't mean that the key tennets of political correctness (tolerence, equality etc.) have to be trashed with it. Until such a time as everyone is able to start off on an equal footing with everyone else, associations based on race are necessary to redress the imbalance of power that is in itself largely based on race. You can pretend that racism doesn't exist, or that key "well-being" indicators aren't often directly tied to race, but the fact is that this is how it is. Until things change, minority associations are a necessity.
Also:
| quote: | | I'd say that 9 out of 10 members of the National White Farmers Association (NWFA) would say that the NBFA is complaining too much. Oh wait there isn't a NWFA because that would be considered racist. |
Well that's because it would be racist. White farmers don't require an association (i.e. to the exclusion of racial minorities) as they form a clear majority. The only reason for white farmers to start such an association would be to ostracise a small number of individuals from the farming community on the basis of race, just further widening the power imbalance. That is why it is racist. Similarly, if it were the other way round (i.e. the majority of farmers were black and they decided to start a black farmers association) then that would be just as racist for exactly the same reasons. White people (farmers or otherwise) in the US or Australia don't need cultural mechanisms to protect them from racial discrimination, just as black people don't in - say - Zimbabwe (where president Mugabe - a black man, obviously - has been murdering white farmers and stealing their land). It's all about redressing power imbalances (which is why the current furore over race exists) and this is why the extent to which a "racist" action can be condemned does sometimes depend on who said it and where they said it.
JM:
| quote: | | this made national news - the college Republicans were making a statement during this bake sale, peacefully, when a bunch of big ass black students walked up, turned over the tables, threw the cookies on the ground, tore down to signs and threathened. how's that for civility, (and equal rights). |
Right. Is this what you're talking about?
| quote: | The sale drew a crowd outside the student center and several students engaged in a shouting match, Moore said.
David C. Rushing, 23, a law student and chairman of Young Conservatives of Texas at SMU and for the state, said the event didn't get out of hand. At most, a dozen students gathered around the table of cookies and Rice Krispies treats, he said. |
http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/0...u.bake.sale.ap/
Gee, sounds out of control. And all those poor, innocent, white, conservative Republicans were trying to do was patronise and inflame tensions among entire groups of people on the basis of race? I feel so sorry for them, having to endure the trauma of hearing slightly raised voices like that. :(
NYCTrancefan:
| quote: | | You are correct speed, I might be a bit too sensitive. I just get pretty riled up on the subject of race, especially when people attempt to question your particular beliefs and label you because I hate to see the generalizations that tend to spew from the subject, as though everyone is cut from the same cloth. I also go out of my way to point out that my take on things is that I deal with people as individuals, not as a race or ethnic background. |
You shouldn't be apologetic for offering your own opinion on the issue. I understand that discussions about race aren't usually constructive, but there are still fundamental issues (concerning, as mentioned before, basic tolerence, equality, respect etc.) that need to be addressed and re-addressed until everyone gets them. If people want to hold stilted conceptions about racial issues then that's up to them, but it doesn't mean that people like rainbow_marble should be able to post drivel like that without being called on it. |
|
|
|
|
