After of years political wrangling, the Senate has passed the “Pigford” settlement, which disperses money to Black farmers in response to past USDA discrimination. This is the second set of fund disbursements resulting from the 1997 Pigford v. Glickman civil lawsuit alleging discriminatory treatment, filed by a number of Black farmers against the government.
 John Boyd, National Black Farmers Association, in tractor |
This Pigford II settlement, despite support from major members of both parties, has been held hostage by right-wing political interests, who have alleged rampant fraud in the claims. While these claims have been raised by various Republican politicians and activists, they have yet to be backed up by any proof. The primary argument against many of the Pigford claims is the fact that there are more claimants than Black farmers in the United States.
The entire purpose of the suit, however, is to compensate farmers for discriminatory treatment in the disbursement of grants and aid. As a result of that discrimination, many Black farmers have lost and continue to lose their farms, thus creating a widening gap between the increasing number of claimants and the dwindling number of current farmers. In fact, investigation by the FBI determined that only three of 15,000 claims in the Pigford I settlement were false.
The opposition to the settlement comes from the far-right section of the Republican Party, the most hardcore free-market capitalists, opposed in principle to government assistance and to any preferences for oppressed groups.
Longstanding history of discrimination against Black farmers
For decades, discrimination against Black farmers has been consistently alleged. Black farmers have continually protested against racist practices that deny them loans and aid more than any other group of farmers, resulting in foreclosure and financial destitution. Such racist practices severely intensify the myriad challenges small farmers face to remain viable.
In 1994, the USDA commissioned an outside study that documented the racial disparity in farm aid. However, it was hesitant to draw the most obvious conclusion – racism.
Following this study, however, the USDA commissioned its own task force on the issue, and in 1997 admitted racist bias in the department. As a result, it set forth a number of changes in the functioning of the USDA addressing discriminatory treatment. A number of Black farmers filed the Pigford lawsuit in 1997 to seek financial compensation for the losses suffered by Black farmers due to these policies.
In 1999, a settlement was reached in the case, and a number of farmers were granted compensation, generally $50,000 each. However, due to complications a number of claims were filed late, and thus were ineligible for the settlement.
After years of struggle over the last decade by Black farmers and their supporters, the government agreed in February 2010 to provide $1.15 billion to settle these “Pigford II” claims. Due to the aforementioned political issues, the settlement authorization has until recently languished in Congress.
The issue is simple: For years, the USDA has engaged in racist behavior. This has been documented and accepted as fact not only by Black farmers, but also by the USDA and the courts. As a direct result of this discrimination, Black farmers have borne an undue share of the burden amongst small farmers attempting to survive in the midst of an extremely challenging environment.
Those who care about the principle of social justice must give outspoken support to this struggle. The Pigford settlements, while crucial, are but a small consolation to those who lost their land, livelihood and generations of family tradition due to the racist practices of the USDA, which is tilted dramatically in favor of big agribusiness.
Justice for Black farmers!
