handout

3 From the Past to the Present Agricultural Development and Black Farmers in the American South

John J. Green, Eleanor M. Green, and Anna M. Kleiner

Action to achieve social justice in agrifood systems should be informed by research from a variety of perspectives. Yet, in scholarly literature concerning changes in American agrifood systems, minority producers and their communities have received limited attention. There are excep- tions, of course, with the growing body of work on farmworkers and recent attention to new immigrant farmers being noteworthy. Unfortu- nately, the world of African American/black farmers has long gone understudied, although a small but vocal group of authors has made major contributions to our understanding of patterns of change occur- ring among these producers and their attempts to construct alternative organizations and institutions.

Some noted works on agrifood systems provide helpful insights into the ever-changing scale, technological advancement, capital intensive- ness, and structure of agricultural production, distribution, and con- sumption (see: Buttel, Larson, and Gillespie 1990 ; Heffernan 2000 ; Heffernan, Hendrickson, and Gronski 1999 ; Hendrickson et al. 2001 ; Lobao and Meyer 2001 ). Conventional agricultural markets have become increasingly cut off by the growing concentration of control over the agrifood system by corporate fi rms ( Heffernan 2000 ). Marketing prob- lems encountered by family farmers consist of the system privileging large-scale producers, insuffi cient information on market outlets and prices, and the ongoing cycle of market price disasters ( Green 2001 ; Green and Picciano 2002 ). Many of these characteristics leave producers with limited resources vulnerable to risks ( Dismukes, Harwood, and Bentley 1997 ; Green 2001 ).

Beyond specifi c community and regional studies, much of the litera- ture is general in nature and focuses on theoretical insights concerning what appear to be national and international trends. These works provide helpful conceptual tools for interpreting change across time and

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

48 Chapter 3

exploring how microlevel phenomena fi t into these broader trajectories. At the same time, such studies often miss variations in the experiences of different groups in terms of their regional location, production types, and sociodemographic characteristics, especially gender, race, and ethnic- ity. Many theoretical and empirical works leave out express attention to black farmers, an ironic omission given their presence in American agri- culture since the time of slavery. When they are mentioned, it is often in the context of the legacy of slavery, sharecropping, and the Great Migra- tion northward. After doing a cursory read of the mainstream literature, a student of agrifood systems may arrive at the faulty conclusion that there are no black farmers left in the United States.

In this chapter, we contribute to the growing literature on black farmers on the basis that investigating the challenges they face and the successes they achieve is important in its own right, in addition to what it tells us about the dominant agrifood system and countervailing social movement responses to it. Interpreted through a “ rural livelihoods ” theoretical framework, we use the case of black farmers in the southern United States, especially those in Mississippi, to explore the dynamic set of circumstances faced by these producers and how they have managed to persist in the face of great odds. Information is drawn from the broad range of published literature and the research projects con- ducted by the authors over the course of the past decade, including archival sources, interviews, focus groups, and secondary data analysis ( Green 2001 , 2002 ; Green and Kleiner 2009a ; Green et al. 2003 ; Kleiner and Green 2008 ). We pay special attention to the stresses placed on black farmers ’ livelihood systems through structural inequality, limited access to land, and indifference and hostility from the institu- tions that are supposed to assist producers, mainly the U.S. Department of Agriculture. We then focus on the grassroots organizations black farmers and their allies have developed to pursue more sustainable livelihoods.

“ Rural Livelihoods ” Theoretical Framework

Occupying an important place in international development studies, theoretical work on livelihood systems draws from an eclectic blend of theoretical frameworks (for an overview, see Green and Kleiner 2009a ). The term livelihood refers to the strategies and tactics used by individu- als, their households, and their communities in working to make a living. In doing so, they must negotiate socioeconomic relations and political

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 49

terrain ( Bebbington 1999 ; De Haan 2000 ; Ellis 1998 ; Farrington et al. 1999 ; Hall and Midgley 2004 ).

Dynamic political, economic, and ecological arrangements sometimes pose threats to livelihood systems while opening opportunities at other times. Of particular interest are the situations where access to resources or exclusion from them infl uence people ’ s ability to handle changes in the broader environments in which they are embedded ( De Haan and Zoomers 2005 ; De Haan 2000 ; Bebbington 1999 ). Analysts often seek to determine whether people with specifi c resource sets are more vulner- able or resilient when faced with change.

Drawing from work as diverse as social movement theory, networks, and studies of social capital, many livelihood theorists have directed their attention to the ways in which different resources are accessed or con- strained and how they infl uence people ’ s capabilities for taking action. Bebbington (1999) focuses on fi ve forms of capital important to liveli- hood systems: natural, human, cultural, social, and produced. These are similar to the forms of assets/capital discussed in contemporary com- munity development literature (e.g., Green and Haines 2008 ; Flora, Flora, and Fey 2004 ). In some circumstances people must trade certain resources to access others. It is argued that situations where people have been able to substantially improve their livelihoods resulted from having the capability to access diverse resources, take advantage of opportuni- ties, and enhance the ways in which resources are used to develop more of a resource or gain another form of resource. To the extent that resources can be invested and used for expansion of capabilities, they are considered forms of capital ( Bebbington 1999 ). In reviewing the literature and refl ecting on his own research, Bebbington (1999 , 2028) argues, “ Where rural people have not been able to improve their liveli- hoods, the principal reasons seem to derive from failure or inability to: defend their existing assets; identify and secure opportunities to turn assets into livelihoods; or protect existing ways of turning assets into livelihoods. ”

As critical scholars interested in the political economy of agrifood systems have long noted, the power that groups have over their own livelihood systems results, at least partially, from their position in the socioeconomic structure. Many studies of agricultural production focus attention on farm scale in terms of acreage or sales or both, but scholars including Heffernan (1972) and Rodefeld (1974) note the importance of other dimensions such as ownership and decision making. Thus, it is not just the scale of the farm enterprise, but also control of labor and the

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

50 Chapter 3

means of production that are important factors. The often-used concep- tual understanding of “ family farming ” is based on the assumption of the family owning land and equipment, providing labor, and making decisions about their business ( Lobao and Meyer 2001 ). From this per- spective, one can argue that the vulnerability or resiliency of a farmer ’ s livelihood system is infl uenced by the structural arrangements in which he or she is embedded. Important issues include ownership, who makes decisions, and the scale of production. In each of these dimensions, black farmers have traditionally been at a disadvantage.

Organizations and institutions mediate people ’ s access to the assets necessary for coping with change by opening and closing pathways for improvement ( De Haan and Zoomers 2005 ), especially through the spheres of the market, the state, and civil society ( Bebbington 1999 ; Meert 2000 ). Power relationships, processes, and policies ranging from the local to the global levels infl uence which pathways are accessible to groups versus being constrained. Restricted access to particular resources results in greater vulnerability. People are often excluded from accessing resources on the basis of their location, nationality, class, gender, race, and ethnicity.

In the context of this discussion, race/ethnicity is of concern because it is an ascribed social status, with associated social, economic and politi- cal rewards and penalties. Being black has important symbolic meaning in American society, and this is amplifi ed in the agrifood sector. From their beginning days in the United States, black farmers were defi ned institutionally as being less worthy than white farmers, fi rst through slavery, then via tenancy and sharecropping. Even today, black farmers are viewed with indifference at best and contempt at worse by the main- stream agricultural establishment. As will be shown in the following sections of this chapter, this has resulted in discrimination and limited access to resources for some groups relative to others. Black farmers in the southern United States have faced challenges and blocked opportuni- ties, thereby threatening their livelihood systems. In some cases, they responded by constructing alternative organizations and placing pressure on the state for change.

Agriculture, Black Farmers, and Livelihood Systems

The twentieth century brought vast changes in agriculture that severely limited farmers ’ power in decision making and their ability to survive on the land in the face of traditional and new agricultural risks. These

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 51

changes included an increase in large-scale, technically advanced, capital- intensive, and structurally complex modes of production, processing, and distribution ( Heffernan 2000 ). Corporate concentration occurred in both the supply and sales sectors through horizontal and vertical integration ( Heffernan 2000 ; Heffernan, Hendrickson, and Gronski 1999 ; Hen- drickson et al. 2001 ). This coincided with the increasing presence of multinational and transnational corporations and efforts to reduce domestic agricultural protections under free trade agreements and global governing bodies (i.e., the World Trade Organization).

These changes have impacted the whole of farm production, and some analysts have noted increased polarization and the development of a dual system of agriculture ( Lobao and Meyer 2001 ) with many small-scale farmers dependent on off-farm income on one side and large-scale indus- trialized corporate farms on the other side ( Albrecht 1997 ; Lobao and Meyer 2001 ). In the middle, the traditional, idealized family farm is increasingly at risk. Recognizing these general patterns, it is important to consider that the people involved in agriculture are not from a homog- enous group. There is heterogeneity between farmers and farms along several different dimensions, including scale ( Albrecht 1997 , 1992 ; Thomas et al. 1996 ; Wimberley 1987 ) and structural organization ( Hef- fernan 1972 ; Rodefeld 1974 , 1978 ), goods produced ( Albrecht 1998 ), production practices employed, and the farmers ’ positions in terms of industry entry and exit ( Jackson-Smith 1999 ). There is also variation among socioeconomic, gender, and racial/ethnic groups. Failure to fully acknowledge this diversity has led to limited government assistance for small, limited-resource and minority farmers who tend to face dispro- portionate challenges relative to their larger, capital-intensive and white counterparts ( USDA Civil Rights Action Team 1997 ; U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce 2001 ; USDA National Commission on Small Farms 1998 ). Therefore, it is important for us to better understand the challenges and needs not only of farmers, but of family farmers in general. We must also consider the complexities faced by specifi c sub- groups in the farming population, such as black producers.

A starting point in this endeavor is to recognize regional differentia- tion based on historical agrifood development patterns. In his analysis of the origins of three general production systems in the United States, Pfeffer (1983) maintains that variability in the structure of agricultural enterprises across the United States is largely a result of labor manage- ment constraints in the context of natural, social, economic, and political conditions. He compares the development of corporate, sharecropping,

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

52 Chapter 3

and family farming systems. Arguably, the South ’ s unique history, espe- cially with regard to slavery, the Civil War and its aftermath, the large population of black residents, the institutional mechanisms of plantation society, and maintenance of white privilege resulted in a particular devel- opment trajectory. This development history led Beckford (1999) to place the American South in a broader category of countries with plantation legacies that led to underdevelopment.

Between the time of European settlement and the end of the Civil War in 1865, blacks provided much of the labor in southern agriculture as slaves, especially in cotton production ( Fite 1984 ; Genovese 1976 ). Their labor was used to build a system of elite white wealth and power. Although all farms did not have slaves, and all slave-holding farms were not large in scale, the social and legal environment allowing for white ownership of black labor provided the avenue by which large plantation systems were organized with owners (often called “ planters ” ) practicing almost complete control over labor. Using the physical labor of slaves, crop production was increased even with few technological develop- ments beyond the cotton gin, a processing invention that substantially increased production capacity.

Following the Civil War and emancipation of slaves, planters and their managers made attempts to engage the so-called Freedmen into wage labor arrangements. For the most part, this was not successful, because the wage system was not a part of the culture of work in the region ’ s dominant agricultural system, and it would not provide the basic neces- sities of life such as food and shelter. For former slaves, there were few incentives to remain in agriculture other than there being limited off-farm employment opportunities. Planters soon found a mix of structural arrangements for agriculture that was more productive while also allow- ing them to keep blacks and poor whites subjugated through vulnerable land tenure arrangements, perpetual indebtedness, and coercive violence. Control over labor switched to sharecropping, tenant farming, and the crop-lien system (see Fite 1984 and Marable 1979 for instructive reviews of this history).

Tenancy systems consisted of the farmer working the land and paying rent to the landowner, typically as a set price or as a portion of crop sales. These arrangements were often problematic for the actual working farmers, because they were at the mercy of the landowner in terms of decision making. If the landowner did not like what a tenant was doing, he could simply rent the land to a different producer in the future. Share- cropping systems typically involved the farmer working the land and

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 53

obtaining supplies or access to land or both from the landowner in exchange for a share of the actual crop or crop sales. Sharecroppers were often forced to plant specifi c crops as dictated by the landowner, and they could only obtain seed and supplies from approved sources, such as a plantation store where they would be charged excessive prices and interest rates. The landowners and their partners were generally the ones weighing the crops, marketing crops, keeping records in their own favor, and distributing funds ( Marable 1979 ). As a result, many sharecroppers stayed in perpetual debt to the landowner. Some debt was owed to lenders beyond the landowner. The crop-lien system entailed farmers accessing much needed credit by mortgaging their crops for supplies ( Marshall and Godwin 1971 ), often from banks.

As Fite (1984) argues, tenancy, sharecropping, and the crop lien were more than mere economic arrangements. They provided the basis of social control by elite whites over both black and poor white producers. The vulnerability of these arrangements, and the extreme pressure the wealthy used to enforce their power, led Rogers to reference the “ inter- locking systems of sharecropping and segregation ” ( 2006 , 24).

Despite these challenges, black landownership grew in the Recon- struction period and continued in many places up through its peak in the early 1900s ( Marable 1979 ). In fact, early movement of blacks into the Mississippi Delta region was in the hope of landownership, and many achieved this goal. The land was wooded and swampy and many whites were not interested in settling in an area with those conditions. The railroad, in a progressive move for the time, looked to the black popula- tion for settlement of the area and offered decent terms and prices. This is how many of the families farming in the area today originally gained their land. As an early farmer in the Mississippi Delta proclaimed, “ I came to Mound Bayou in 1887 and purchased from the Louisville, New Orleans and Texas Railroad Company forty acres of land on the terms fi xed by them for such purchases. This was usually seven dollars per acre, one dollar per acre down, the balance in fi ve equal payments ” ( Jackson 1937 , 31). It was the period when some notable black com- munities were established, such as Mound Bayou, which was settled by former slave families from Joseph Davis ’ s Hurricane Plantation ( Hermann 1999 ).

However, landownership dwindled as more lands were consolidated into white-owned plantations ( Rogers 2006 ). Thoughts of Reconstruc- tion and Freedmen gave way to a new racial order. Institutionalized segregation of the races and the so-called “ black codes ” and “ Jim Crow ”

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

54 Chapter 3

laws limited political and economic opportunities and served as mecha- nisms for continuation of white privilege in the South ( Woodward 1966 ).

The year 1920 is noted as the height of the number of black farms in America. At that time, there were disparities between whites and blacks in owner-operator status compared with tenancy, both nationally and even more so in the state of Mississippi. As demonstrated in table 3.1 , more than two-thirds of white farmers were owner-operators, compared with less than one-quarter of black farmers at the national level. The gap was even greater in Mississippi, where 86 percent of black farmers were tenants.

For those black farmers who were able to obtain and control land, it proved a valuable resource for their livelihood strategies and communi- ties. One black farmer interviewed by an author of this chapter for an oral history project spoke of how important this land was, stating, “ It is our livelihood. It is our life. Defi nitely the land is more valuable than money to me and my family ” ( Burkett 2007 ). As noted by many analysts of black rural communities, landownership provided economic security, independence, and community stability ( Dittmer 1995 ; Gilbert, Sharp, and Felin 2002 ). This assessment was borne out in the Civil Rights Movement when black farmers and black landowners in general had the greater level of autonomy and resources necessary to help support rural organizing efforts ( Dittmer 1995 ).

Over the course of the twentieth century there was a widespread loss of farms and an exodus of people and families from agriculture across the United States ( Lobao and Meyer 2001 ). Along with a rapid decline in the number of farms and farmers, there was a parallel increase in the

Table 3.1 Number of farm operators by race and tenure, 1920

Farm tenure

National Mississippi

White Black White Black

Owner 67% 24% 61% 14% (3,691,868) (218,612) (68,131) (23,130)

Manager 1% < 1% 1% < 1% (66,223) (2,026) (797) (192)

Tenant 32% 76% 38% 86% (1,740,363) (705,070) (41,954) (137,679)

Total (5,498,454) (925,708) (110,882) (161,001)

Source : United States Department of Commerce 1922 . Table constructed by John Green.

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 55

average size of farm operations between the 1920s and 1970s. This included periods encompassing the bottoming out of the global cotton market, the Great Depression, and the Dust Bowl era, as well as rapid mechanization and chemicalization of agricultural production following World War II. Between the 1970s and early 1980s, the number of farms remained fairly constant until the severe farm crisis of the 1980s. By this time, much of agricultural production was dependent on credit for cap- ital-intensive systems, and producers were heavily indebted. In past crises, farm families would work more and exploit themselves to meet their economic needs. However, by the 1980s there was so much fi nancial capital involved that no level of belt tightening or extra work could save some families from foreclosure ( Heffernan 2008 ). The number of large- scale and corporate farms increased.

Although agricultural crises have proven problematic for family farmers and their communities across racial and ethnic groups, blacks have exited agricultural production at rates disproportionately faster and more severe than those of whites. Wood and Gilbert (2000) estimate a 98 percent loss of black farm operations between 1900 and 1997 com- pared with a nearly 66 percent loss among white operations.

This begs two questions. What challenges to their livelihood systems have black farmers faced? Which of these are general to family farmers — especially those that are characterized as limited resource — and which are unique to this minority group defi ned through their ascribed racial status? Drawing from a range of studies ( USDA Civil Rights Action Team 1997 ; Gilbert, Sharp, and Felin 2002 ; Green 2001 , 2002 ; Grim 1995 ; Jones 1994 ; Kleiner and Green 2008 ; Lobao and Meyer 2001 ; Mitchell 2000 ; Schor 1996 ; Wood and Gilbert 2000 ), the following challenges appear to be particularly troubling.

• General decline in the ability of small and medium-sized family farmers to make a living from the land in the face of competition from large-scale, industrial, and corporate production units. • Mechanization of production, requiring less labor and additional capital and technological investment. • Vulnerable tenure status in terms of tenancy arrangements. • Property disputes in situations where landowners did not leave a will, often resulting in forced sale of heir property. • Corporate consolidation of commercial markets with demands for low-cost high-volume production. • Restricted access to timely and appropriate credit because of discrimi- nation by lenders, both commercial and governmental entities.

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

56 Chapter 3

• Limited knowledge of, participation in, and access to government agricultural programs, and the existence of few programs specifi cally designed to assist small-scale and limited-resource producers.

The last point deserves considerable attention. In situations where people face particular challenges to their livelihood systems, they often turn to their government for protection and assistance. However, black farmers have been underserved by governmental bodies. The state has not provided an adequate or timely response for protection of livelihoods for black producers ( USDA Civil Rights Action Team 1997 ; Green et al. 2003 ; Grim 1996 ; Jones 1994 ; USDA National Commission on Small Farms 1998 ), and the USDA Civil Rights Action Team (1997) reported both historic and contemporary discrimination against the needs and interests of black farmers. Some of these entailed aggregate personal discrimination, while others were more institutional and structural forms of discrimination.

The characteristics of agricultural programs have changed over the course of several decades, but there continue to be initiatives to provide access to credit, price supports, and insurance for production of tradi- tional commodities including cotton, corn, and soybeans. A variety of barriers block pathways for many black farmers, preventing them from fully participating in and receiving the benefi t of these programs. Lim- ited-resource and minority farmers, including black producers, cite pref- erential attention given to large-scale producers, personal and institutional discrimination, and insuffi cient outreach efforts ( Green 2001 , 2002 ). Furthermore, most of the prominent government agricultural programs were designed to provide the greatest benefi ts to those farmers with the highest level of commercial production rather than those in the greatest need of assistance ( Jones 1994 ). These farmers also face challenges man- aging risk and the fi nancial intricacies of agricultural production and marketing, while little technical assistance is available to them to address these aspects of operating a farm. Overall, both anecdotal evidence and empirical research suggest that there is inequality in access to and out- comes from existing agricultural programs ( USDA Civil Rights Action Team 1997 ; U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce 2001 ; Green 2001 ; Jones 1994 ).

Many of these criticisms have been voiced not only through protest and advocacy, but also through legal challenges such as the Pigford v. Glickman (1999) class action case of black farmers who believed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had been discriminatory in its credit programs and other programs. A settlement was reached in the case, with

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 57

payouts to some claimants as well as other forms of relief. Additionally, changes were to be made in the operation of USDA programs and offi ces. Although progress has been made in efforts to push civil rights in the USDA (some of the successes of which are outlined in the following section), many producers have had to focus more of their attention on grassroots development efforts to survive.

Responses from the Grassroots

The short social history of black farmers in the American South provided in this chapter demonstrates the challenges they have faced over multiple generations. This rather negative history can be counteracted, however, by directing attention to the progressive initiatives black farmers have made in their efforts to survive and achieve greater livelihood security. Much of this mobilizing and organizing work took place around devel- opment of self-help associations, cooperatives, and interaction with civil rights initiatives. These efforts continue to be a part of contemporary social movement responses to the dominant global industrialized agri- food system.

Collectively referred to as community-based cooperatives (CBCs), these groups share similarities with traditional producer and consumer cooperatives in terms of member ownership, democratic control, limited return on investment, and patronage refunds ( Green 2002 ). Different from their larger-scale, commodity-specifi c counterparts in mainstream agriculture, CBCs focus more on local geographic boundaries, generally have a small membership base, and express a social justice as well as an economic agenda. Many of these organizations are legally chartered as cooperatives, while others are nonprofi ts. Some of them are more infor- mal self-help groups ( Green and Kleiner 2009b ).

Some self-help associations and “ poor people ’ s cooperatives ” origi- nated in the late 1800s as small-scale farmers and sharecroppers faced competition with their larger-scale counterparts in combination with the high prices they had to pay for inputs, the low commodity prices they received for their goods, and the crop-lien system ( Marshall and Godwin 1971 ). As already discussed in a previous section of this chapter, tenancy and sharecropping arrangements resulted in major power differences between landowners/managers and those who actually worked the soil.

The Colored Farmers Alliance and Cooperative Union sought to address the mutual interests of small farmers, sharecroppers, and hired laborers in a collective manner ( Marshall and Godwin 1971 ). Beginning

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

58 Chapter 3

in Arkansas and then spreading regionally, the Southern Tenant Farmers ’ Union (STFU) was established in response to laborers and sharecroppers being pushed off the land by owners trying to take advantage of govern- ment programs intending to raise prices by paying farms to curb produc- tion levels. STFU, cooperative organizers, and some progressive policy makers advocated for rules to provide payment to workers, expand services, and create the U.S. Department of Agriculture ’ s Farm Security Administration in 1937. In contrast to most other agricultural agencies, this agency sought to help displaced workers by creating resettlement communities and developing cooperative businesses ( Ibid. ). Some of the cooperative organizations started during this time helped set the stage for future mobilization efforts ( Green 2002 ).

Along with the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s through early 1970s came another push to develop community-based cooperatives, in the form of “ New Poor People ’ s Cooperatives ” ( Marshall and Godwin 1971 ; Ulmer 1969 ). As voting rights were achieved and public accom- modations more widely accepted, some community organizers turned their attention toward the next step in a broader struggle — attaining economic justice through access to markets and jobs. Agricultural and consumer cooperatives were organized across the South. These coopera- tives often included residents of rural and urban communities, producers, consumers, churches, and civil rights groups.

Cooperatives pooled resources to purchase supplies and equipment, combined their produce to market to wholesale buyers, established local markets, and formed credit unions. Recognizing the need for collective action, several combined forces to create umbrella organizations to serve producers and communities across the southern region. Lead among them was the Federation of Southern Cooperatives (which later became the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund). Through capacity building, advocacy, and providing direct services, these organi- zations fi lled many of the gaps left by the market and state in meeting people ’ s livelihood needs.

Scholars have investigated the successes and challenges of CBCs ( Green 2002 ; Green and Kleiner 2009a ; Marshall and Godwin 1971 ; Reynolds 2003 ; Ulmer 1969 ). One of the primary purposes of CBCs was to create self-help organizations for poor, rural, and minority communities to mediate the impact of the broader socioeconomic forces and pursue more secure livelihoods for their members. Because dominant institutions in the market and state have often failed to address black farmers ’ needs, CBCs engage in social movements to organize alternatives.

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 59

The successes achieved by these groups have gone beyond grassroots development to infl uence national-level policies and programs. Most well known was the role that organized black farmers played in gaining atten- tion to past discrimination and the need for justice in services offered to black farmers, such as the Pigford v. Glickman (1999) case. Through their mobilization, organizing, and advocacy efforts, as well as their ability to demonstrate fi eld-based successes, CBCs and their associations also had input in constructing more progressive alternatives. Efforts included participation in commissions to study and make recommenda- tions on the plight and future survival of underserved producers through the USDA National Commission on Small Farms (1998) and the USDA Civil Rights Action Team (1997) .

Even though the last several federal farm bills have extended many of the programs supporting capital-intensive industrial agriculture, there were advances made in the direction of access and equity in government programs. A list of accomplishments from the last decade includes the appointment of an assistant secretary for civil rights position in the USDA; development and implementation of procedures for nominating and electing Farm Services Agency Committee members and counting ballots; public access to county-level USDA program participation rates; and creation of a volunteer minority farm registry. Collaborating with numerous other organizations from a broad range of backgrounds (e.g., sustainable agriculture, community food security), they also promoted the establishment and funding of programs of great benefi t to black farmers, including the Outreach and Technical Assistance Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program (section 2501 of the 1990 Farm Bill), among numerous others. They advocated for dia- logue between community-based organizations and the USDA through the latter ’ s Annual Partners Meeting. These groups were organized locally, regionally through groups such as the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, and nationally through the Rural Coalition.

Recognizing the successes of CBCs, it is important to note the chal- lenges. Traditionally underserved producers continue to face challenges with establishing alternative markets, accessing insurance, and realizing benefi ts from programs that tend to support a small number of the largest, highly mechanized, and capital-intensive farm operations.

Working to identify and document these challenges and possible responses, the Rural Coalition conducted focus groups across the nation, including places in the southern United States, to inform the 2002 Farm

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

60 Chapter 3

Bill ( Green 2001 , 2002 ). Kleiner and Green (2008) followed this work in partnership with the Mississippi Association of Cooperatives and Heifer International, conducting focus groups with members of organiza- tions in Mississippi and Louisiana. Through these venues, participants discussed existing and desired market outlets and the opportunities and challenges associated with each one. They explored the meaning of sus- tainable agriculture, what resources exist, and the challenges faced in this approach to production. These studies highlighted common barriers to pursuing alternative markets, such as land insecurity, lack of afford- able credit, and limited access to profi table markets. Many of their participants called for greater collaboration between individual produc- ers and community-based organizations to overcome these challenges.

Discussion

Reviewing the position and experiences of specifi c groups in development processes provides the basis for a more nuanced understanding of social transitions and the complexities involved in terms of who wins and who loses under particular structural arrangements. Given black farmers ’ important albeit often unrecognized role in American agrifood systems, directing attention to them is a rewarding enterprise. Shining light on some of the extreme injustices and their costs to individuals, families, and communities allows students of inequality to more clearly articulate structural constraints on livelihood systems and the sustainability of a people. At the same time, exploring the history of black farmers also provides lessons on mobilizing and organizing to construct alternative institutions to meet people ’ s needs in a more socially just manner.

As a growing body of literature in the academic and popular presses emphasizes, the dominant agrifood system is unsustainable and unjust. Many of the developments in recent decades have resulted in problems for farmers, their families, rural communities, and the environment. The narrative of black farmers shows greater details of the transitions that have taken place, and may help keep us from being overly romantic about the past. The story of black farmers is the story of justice pursued but never fully realized. For black farmers, it is not a matter of going back to the days of yesteryear, for how can a system based on slavery and sharecropping be considered idyllic? Instead it is a matter of continuously striving to achieve justice in the future. Until black farmers and agricul- tural workers of all races, ethnicities, and genders are treated equitably, a more just and sustainable agrifood system will be too far out of reach.

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 61

References

Albrecht , Don E. 1992 . The Correlates of Farm Concentration in American Agriculture. Rural Sociology 57 ( 4 ): 512 – 520 .

Albrecht , Don E. 1997 . The Changing Structure of U.S. Agriculture: Dualism Out, Industrialism In. Rural Sociology 62 ( 4 ): 474 – 490 .

Albrecht , Don E. 1998 . Agricultural Concentration: An Analysis by Commodity. Southern Rural Sociology 14 ( 1 ): 18 – 40 .

Bebbington , Anthony . 1999 . Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyz- ing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty. World Development 27 ( 12 ): 2021 – 2044 .

Beckford , George L. 1999 . Persistent Poverty: Underdevelopment in Plantation Economies of the Third World . 2nd ed. Kingston, Jamaica : University of the West Indies Press .

Burkett , Ben . 2007 . Interviewed by Eleanor M. Green, January 23. Mississippi Black Farmer Oral History Collection, Delta State University Archives, Cleve- land, MS.

Buttel , Frederick , Olaf F. Larson , and Gilbert W. Gillespie Jr . 1990 . The Sociology of Agriculture . New York : Greenwood Press .

De Haan , Leo J. 2000 . Globalization, Localization, and Sustainable Livelihood. Sociologia Ruralis 40 ( 3 ): 339 – 365 .

De Haan , Leo J. , and Annelies Zoomers . 2005 . Exploring the Frontier of Liveli- hoods Research. Development and Change 36 ( 1 ): 27 – 47 .

Dismukes , Robert , Joy L. Harwood , and Susan E. Bentley . 1997 . Characteristics and Risk Management Needs of Limited-resource and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers . Washington, DC : United States Department of Agriculture .

Dittmer , John . 1995 . Local People: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi . Urbana : University of Illinois Press .

Ellis , Frank . 1998 . Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversifi cation. Journal of Development Studies 35 ( 1 ): 1 – 38 .

Farrington , John D. , Diana Carney , Caroline Ashley , and Cathryn Turton . 1999 . Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice: Early Applications of Concepts in Rural Areas. [London: Overseas Development Institute.] Natural Resource Perspectives 42 ( June ): 1 – 15 .

Fite , Gilbert C. 1984 . Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture, 1865 – 1980 . Lexington : University Press of Kentucky .

Flora , Cornelia , Jan Flora , and Susan Fey . 2004 . Rural Communities: Legacy and Change . Boulder, CO : Westview Press .

Genovese , Eugene D. 1976 . Roll Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made . New York : Vintage Books .

Gilbert , Jess , Gwen Sharp , and M. Sindy Felin . 2002 . The Loss and Persistence of Black-owned Farms and Farmland: A Review of the Research Literature and Its Implications. Southern Rural Sociology 18 ( 2 ): 1 – 30 .

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

62 Chapter 3

Green , Gary P. , and Anna Haines . 2008 . Asset Building and Community Devel- opment . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Green , John J. 2001 . Developing Programs from the Grassroots: Assessing the Needs and Interests of Limited Resource Farmers. Working Paper Number 1, Program Responsiveness Series. Missouri Action Research Connection, Univer- sity of Missouri-Columbia.

Green , John J. 2002 . Community-Based Cooperatives and Networks: Participa- tory Social Movement Assessment of Four Organizations. PhD diss., University of Missouri-Columbia.

Green , John J. , Tomeka Harbin , Christopher Pope , Lorette Picciano , and Heather Fenney . 2003 . A Multi-Community Assessment of the Risk Management Needs of Small, Limited Resource and Minority Farmers. Working paper for the Rural Coalition and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Risk Management Agency.

Green , John J. , and Anna M. Kleiner . 2009a . Exploring Global Agrifood Politics and the Position of Limited Resource Producers in the United States . In The Politics of Globalization , ed. Samir Dasgupta , 313 – 333 . London : Sage Publications .

Green , John J. , and Anna M. Kleiner . 2009b . Escaping the Bondage of the Dominant Agrifood System: Community-based Cooperative Strategies. Southern Rural Sociology 24 ( 2 ): 149 – 168 .

Green , John J. , and Lorette Picciano . 2002 . Amplifying the Voices of Commu- nity-based Organizations through Action Research: Obtaining Input from the Grassroots on Agricultural Policies and Programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Community Development Society, Cleveland, MS, July 22.

Grim , Valerie . 1995 . The Politics of Inclusion: Black Farmers and the Quest for Agribusiness Participation, 1945 – 1990s. Agricultural History 69 ( 2 ): 257 – 271 .

Grim , Valerie . 1996 . Black Participation in the Farmers Home Administration and Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, 1964 – 1990. Agricul- tural History 70 ( 2 ): 321 – 336 .

Hall , Anthony , and James Midgley . 2004 . Social Policy for Development . Thou- sand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications .

Heffernan , William D. 1972 . Sociological Dimensions of Agricultural Structures in the United States. Sociologia Ruralis 12 ( 3 – 4 ): 481 – 499 .

Heffernan , William D. 2000 . Concentration of Ownership and Control in Agri- culture . In Hungry for Profi t: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment , ed. Fred Magdoff , John Bellamy Foster , and Frederick H. Buttel , 61 – 75 . New York : Monthly Review Press .

Heffernan , William D. 2008 . Interviewed by Anna M. Kleiner and John J. Green, December 27.

Heffernan , William D. , Mary Hendrickson , and Robert Gronski . 1999 . Consoli- dation in the Food and Agriculture System . Washington, DC : National Farmers Union .

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

From the Past to the Present 63

Hendrickson , Mary , William D. Heffernan , Phil Howard , and Judy B. Heffernan . 2001 . Consolidation in Food Retailing and Dairy: Implications for Farmers and Consumers in a Global Food System . Washington, DC : National Farmers Union .

Hermann , Janet Sharp . 1999 . The Pursuit of a Dream . Oxford : University Press of Mississippi .

Jackson , Maurice Elizabeth . 1937 . Mound Bayou: A Study in Social Develop- ment. Master ’ s thesis, University of Alabama.

Jackson-Smith , Douglas . 1999 . Understanding the Microdynamics of Farm Structural Change: Entry, Exit, and Restructuring among Wisconsin Family Farmers in the 1980s. Rural Sociology 64 ( 1 ): 66 – 91 .

Jones , Hezekiah S. 1994 . Federal Agricultural Policies: Do Black Farm Operators Benefi t? Review of Black Political Economy 22 ( 4 ): 25 – 50 .

Kleiner , Anna M. , and John J. Green . 2008 . Expanding the Marketing Oppor- tunities and Sustainable Production Potential for Minority and Limited Resource Agricultural Producers in Louisiana and Mississippi. Southern Rural Sociology 23 ( 1 ): 149 – 169 .

Lobao , Linda , and Katherine Meyer . 2001 . The Great Agricultural Transition: Crisis, Change, and Social Consequences of Twentieth Century U.S. Farming. Annual Review of Sociology 27 : 103 – 124 .

Marable , Manning . 1979 . The Land Question in Historical Perspective: The Economics of Poverty in the Blackbelt South, 1865 – 1920 . In The Black Rural Landowner — Endangered Species: Social, Political, and Economic Implications , ed. Leo McGee and Robert Boone , 3 – 24 . Westport, CT : Greenwood Press .

Marshall , Ray , and Lamond Godwin . 1971 . Cooperatives and Rural Poverty in the South . Baltimore, MD : The Johns Hopkins University Press .

Meert , Henk . 2000 . Rural Community Life and the Importance of Reciprocal Survival Strategies. Sociologia Ruralis 40 ( 3 ): 319 – 338 .

Mitchell , Thomas W. 2000 . From Reconstruction to Deconstruction: Undermin- ing Black Landownership, Political Independence, and Community through Par- tition Sales of Tenancies in Common. Research Paper No. 132, Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison.

Pfeffer , Max J. 1983 . Social Origins of Three Systems of Farm Production in the United States. Rural Sociology 48 ( 4 ): 540 – 562 .

Pigford v. Glickman . 1999 . 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C.).

Reynolds , Bruce . 2003 . Black Farmers in America, 1865 – 2000: The Pursuit of Independent Farming and the Role of Cooperatives . Washington, DC : United States Department of Agriculture .

Rodefeld , Richard D. 1974 . The Changing Organizational and Occupational Structure of Farming and the Implications for Farm Workforce Individuals, Families, and Communities. PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Rodefeld , Richard D. 1978 . Trends in U.S. Farm Organizational Structure and Type . In Changes in Rural America , ed. Richard D. Rodefeld , Jan Flora , Donald

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

64 Chapter 3

Voth , Isao Fujimoto , and James Converse , 158 – 177 . St. Louis : C. V. Mosby Company .

Rogers , Kim Lacy . 2006 . Life and Death in the Delta: African American Narra- tives of Violence, Resilience, and Social Change . New York : Palgrave Macmillan .

Schor , Joel . 1996 . Black Farmers/Farms: The Search for Equity. Agriculture and Human Values 13 ( 3 ): 48 – 63 .

Thomas , John K. , Frank M. Howell , Ge Wang , and Don E. Albrecht . 1996 . Visualizing Trends in the Structure of U.S. Agriculture: 1982 – 1992. Rural Sociol- ogy 61 ( 2 ): 349 – 374 .

Ulmer , Al . 1969 . Cooperatives and Poor People in the South . Southern Regional Council, Atlanta, GA.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Civil Rights Action Team. 1997 . Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Agriculture . Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Offi ce .

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Commission on Small Farms. 1998 . A Time to Act: A Report of the USDA National Commission on Small Farms . Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Offi ce .

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . 1922 . Agriculture: General Report and Analytical Tables . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Offi ce. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/Historical_Publications/ 1920/1920_General_Reports_and_Analysis.pdf (accessed January 15, 2011).

U.S. Government Accountability Offi ce . 2001 . Farm Programs: Information on Recipients of Federal Payments . Washington, DC : United States Government Accountability Offi ce .

Wimberley , Ronald C. 1987 . Dimensions of U.S. Agristructure: 1969 – 1982. Rural Sociology 52 ( 4 ): 445 – 461 .

Wood , Spencer D. , and Jess Gilbert . 2000 . Re-entering African American Farmers: Recent Trends and a Policy Rationale. Review of Black Political Economy 27 ( 4 ): 43 – 64 .

Woodward , C. Vann . 1966 . The Strange Career of Jim Crow . 2nd ed. New York : Oxford University Press .

Alkon, A. H., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2011). Cultivating food justice : Race, class, and sustainability. MIT Press. Created from du on 2022-04-19 16:48:39.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 1 . M

IT P

re ss

. A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .