Category Archives: ~ Culture & History

~ Culture & History, ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

When will Farmers get their $1.25 billion settlement for African Americans … long overdue – Reminder


WASHINGTON, April 22, 2010

(UPI) — Black U.S. farmers UpDATE

are frustrated waiting for Congress to pay a class-action settlement over racial prejudice in farm loans, a farmers group head said.

“We spend a billion dollars on a jet to go bomb somebody. We’re talking about a billion dollars to help feed our country, and I just don’t see why Congress and the president can’t go ahead and find (the money). It is an emergency,” Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association President Gary Grant said.

The class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture established a pattern of racial discrimination in the department’s allocation of farm loans and assistance from 1983-97.

The lawsuit, Pigford vs. Glickman, ended with a settlement in which the Agriculture Department agreed to pay some 80,000 African-American farmers $50,000 each if they had tried to get USDA loans or assistance but failed, despite meeting qualifications.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the farmers could also seek up to $250,000 for actual damages from the bias, CNN reported.

U.S. President Barack Obama asked Congress to provide $1.15 billion to pay the claims but a March 31 deadline to appropriate the money passed and Congress now says it will come up with a plan by the end of May.

U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., said Democratic lawmakers had a “total commitment” to ensuring the settlement is paid. But he said they needed to work out how to pay for the settlement under the congressional PAYGO rule, requiring the money be available rather than borrowed.

Another option would be to designate the settlement an emergency, which would make it exempt from PAYGO, Butterfield said.

The farmers have until May 31 to withdraw from the proposed settlement and pursue independent claims against the USDA.

 

*******************************************************

Landmark Settlement … Dan Glickman

Following nearly a decade of litigation, a $1.25 billion agreement has been struck between the USDA and a class consisting of black farmers. Congress is now being asked to provide the needed funds and several prominent farm-state politicians seem keen to do so.

“I am pleased that a settlement has been reached between USDA and African American farmers,” said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in a statement. “As chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am committed to ensuring that every farmer in America receives equal access and treatment in the delivery of USDA’s programs and services. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to help provide the compensation owed to African American farmers who have been victims of discrimination.”

The current deal comes after the original 1990s Pigford v. Glickman settlement that cost taxpayers some $1 billion. In the original settlement, roughly 22,000 claims were filed and 16,000 claimants received funds.

Saying they’d been left out of the earlier suit, the current class claims USDA’s widespread discriminatory loan-lending practices harmed tens of thousands of black farmers.

“Today’s announcement moves us an important step closer to a just resolution of the black farmers cases,” said John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association. “President Obama, (USDA) Secretary Vilsack and the administration have shown leadership in getting us to this moment. Next week, another black farmer will lose his farm. Others are at risk of not living to see justice. These farmers have waited for years, and simply cannot wait any longer for final resolution.”

In contrast to Boyd’s muted approval of the agreement, the tone at the Thursday USDA/Department of Justice press conference announcing the deal was buoyant.

“This is a great day for the USDA and the many thousands of African American farmers it serves,” said Thomas Perrelli, DOJ associate attorney general. “This litigation has gone on for many years and has stood in the way of what should be a productive, cooperative relationship. The settlement we’re announcing is possible because Secretary Vilsack was, and is, committed to changing that relationship.”

The second round of Pigford litigation “has lasted through the terms of several previous (USDA secretaries) but Secretary Vilsack was determined from Day One to be the one who turned the page. He’s been personally involved, making sure the deal was done in a way that was right by the farmers and was responsible for the government.”

The $1.25 billion — $100 million of which is accounted for in the 2008 farm bill — was included in President Obama’s latest budget and will “completely resolve the claims that arose out of the original litigation, addressing the claims of late filers,” continued Perrelli.

“Once we have that appropriation, we’ll seek approval from the court where interested parties will have an opportunity to review the settlement and make any comments for the court to consider. If the court approves it … class members will have six months to submit claims.”

Perrelli noted several other settlement criteria:

• The class consists of anyone who, prior to the passage of the 2008 farm bill, submitted a late claim in the original Pigford litigation and hasn’t had his discrimination complaint heard.

• The process for participating will be similar to the one used in the original case.

Acknowledging major complaints from both sides in earlier cases, Perrelli vowed this time would be “a much, much more streamlined process.”

• As in the earlier cases, farmers who submit claims will choose between two tracks.

“Track A provides for a simplified claims process designed to provide quick relief of up to $50,000 plus debt relief. Track B will be a more rigorous process but will permit successful claimants an opportunity to receive actual damages up to $250,000.”

• The actual amount any claimant will receive depends on how many successful claimants there are.

So, Track A awards of $50,000 could end up being much less if there are too many successful claimants?

“I don’t want to put a particular number on it,” said Perrelli. “But, like I said, it could be up to $50,000. It could be lower if there are significantly more plaintiffs.”

The process “will take time. But we feel we’ve learned, over the last decade, how to make it more streamlined and efficient. And we hope the $1.25 billion will be distributed quickly and appropriately.”

• If funds aren’t appropriated by Congress by the end of March, plaintiffs have the opportunity to walk away from the agreement.

One problem: last year, Congress didn’t approve a similar budget request and amount. Why will it approve the $1.25 billion this time?

In refusing the earlier request, “one of the concerns Congress expressed was the lack of signed settlement agreement in which there was an acknowledgement by the plaintiffs that this would be a sufficient amount to resolve the dispute and would be a structure they’d be satisfied with,” said Vilsack. “We now have a signed settlement agreement. … Our hope and belief is Congress will pass this appropriation expeditiously and allow us to begin the process of getting folks paid.”

To ensure the settlement funding, Vilsack pledged to “focus all my time, attention and resources. … I think there’s bipartisan support for this. One of the senators I talked to about this recently … is (Republican) Charles Grassley from Iowa.”

Indeed, in a statement, Grassley said he’d “originally hoped that the Pigford v. Glickman settlement would take care of the injustice that had been left untouched for decades. Unfortunately, many people were shut out of the process. When it became apparent that the USDA would not act, we took further steps and introduced legislation to right the wrongs. We finally got something included in the last farm bill and now, with today’s announcement, African American farmers who were wronged by the USDA are one step closer to a full resolution and well-deserved justice.”

Such statements are unlikely to placate farmers who claim it isn’t only blacks who have had trouble with the USDA through the years. And Vilsack did himself no favors during the press conference when asked for the “most egregious example” of USDA’s racial bias.

“Here’s an example: you had two farmers — one white, one black — go into Farm Service Agency in state ‘X,’” said Vilsack. “The white farmer applied for an operating loan, had it processed rapidly, had it approved and had the resources available so he could put a crop in. The black farmer was either denied the operating loan without due diligence to determine if he could repay the loan or he was strung out for such a long time that he didn’t get the operating loan in a timely (manner). That compromised (the black farmers’) capacity to put a crop in the ground and therefore made it more difficult to make payments and keep their farming operation. The result was either people got deeply in debt or, in some cases, they lost the farm.”

If that is the most “egregious” example Vilsack can find, Congress will surely be reluctant to fund such a settlement. In coming weeks, there will be plenty of people pointing Congress to the fact that for years numerous U.S. farmers, of all racial make-ups, received late operating loans. In fact, lawsuits similar to Pigford have been filed by other ethnicities, including whites. A class made up of Native Americans has already been certified.

In addition, Vilsack dodged questions about potential fraud, the possibility that more than $1.25 billion will be needed, and the number of potential claimants. “I’m not going to get into hypothetical circumstances,” he said. “There are numbers all over the place in terms of this. … I don’t know how many claims there will be. I don’t know if it’ll be 75,000 or 10,000. I don’t know if it’ll be 28,000 or 42,000.”

What about class attorney fees? Fees for “a lengthy list” of class attorneys “are part of the settlement negotiation,” said Perrelli. “It is a relatively complicated set of attorney fee provisions because it includes both prior work and a significant amount of future work with (Track A and Track B cases). There are also provisions that attempt to address both payments to class counsel as well as payments to non-class counsel. That’s because we want to ensure the maximum amount of funds actually reach individual farmers.

“The broad outline is … that the party will put before the court the issue of attorney fees. We’ll litigate between a range of potentially 4.1 percent and 7.4 percent of the total funds made available. That puts (attorney fees between) $49 million and $89 million.”

~ Culture & History, ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Gov’t offers $680 million for Indian farmers …as reported by AP – Reminder


By MARY CLARE JALONICK, AP

WASHINGTON — The government is offering American Indian farmers who say they were denied farm loans a $680 million settlement.

Unlike a second round of the black farmers suit that is now pending in Congress, the American Indian money would not need legislative action to be awarded.

The two sides agreed on the deal after more than 10 months of negotiations. The government and the Indian plaintiffs met in federal court Tuesday to present the settlement to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan.

The agreement also includes $80 million in farm debt forgiveness for the Indian plaintiffs and a series of initiatives to try and alleviate racism against American Indians and other minorities in rural farm loan offices. Individuals who can prove discrimination could receive up to $250,000.

A hearing on preliminary approval of the deal is set for Oct. 29. Sullivan indicated he was pleased with the agreement, calling it historic and coming down off his bench to shake hands with lawyers from both sides.

Assistant Attorney General Tony West and Joseph Sellers, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, both said they were encouraged by the judge’s positive reaction.

“Based on the court’s comments, we’re optimistic,” West said after the hearing adjourned.

The lawsuit filed in 1999 contends Indian farmers and ranchers lost hundreds of millions of dollars over several decades because they were denied USDA loans that instead went to their white neighbors. The government settled a similar lawsuit filed by black farmers more than a decade ago.

“Today’s settlement can never undo wrongs that Native Americans may have experienced in past decades, but combined with the actions we at USDA are taking to address such wrongs, the settlement will provide some measure of relief to those who have been discriminated against,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.

Claryca Mandan of North Dakota’s Three Affiliated Tribes, a plaintiff in the case, stopped ranching after she and her husband were denied loans in the early 1980s. She said she was pleased with the settlement.

“This is a culmination of 30 years of struggle,” she said

And Republicans continue to interfere and hurt POC who own land

~ Culture & History, ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Politics | Funding for black farmers, Indians stalls again |blame Republicans


Repost

August 5, 2010

Funding for black farmers, Indians stalls again

Despite broad support, legislation to finalize $4.6 billion in settlements with black farmers and American Indians stalled in the Senate again Thursday amid partisan bickering.

By BEN EVANS

Associated Press Writer

Related

WASHINGTON —

Despite broad support, legislation to finalize $4.6 billion in settlements with black farmers and American Indians stalled in the Senate again Thursday amid partisan bickering.

Lawmakers from both parties say they support resolving the long-standing claims of discrimination and mistreatment by federal agencies. But the funding has been caught up for months in a fight over spending and deficits, with Republicans and Democrats arguing over how to pay for them. Read more …click on the link below

Politics | Funding for black farmers, Indians stalls again | Seattle Times Newspaper.

July 22, 2010

Senate rejects $3 billion Indian trust settlement

The U.S. Senate has rejected a $3.4 billion government settlement with American Indians that had been added to a much larger war-funding bill.

The Associated Press

Related

HELENA, Mont. —The U.S. Senate has rejected a $3.4 billion government settlement with American Indians that had been added to a much larger war-funding bill.

The Senate passed the almost $60 billion bill funding President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan late Wednesday – but not before stripping out the settlement and $20 billion in other domestic spending approved by the House.

The Senate’s approval would have given the Obama administration the authority to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont. Between 300,000 and 500,000 Native Americans claim the Interior Department mismanaged billions of dollars held in trust by the government.

The House attached the settlement to the war-funding bill earlier this month.

Thursday’s vote marks the second time the settlement has failed to pass the Senate. It was originally included in the Democrats’ jobs-agenda bill that was caught in a filibuster last month.

~ Culture & History, ~ In the Library

FREEDOM RIDERS : A Stanley Nelson Film : American Experience – In memory


  Get Inspired

 The World Premiere: In 2010 at Sundance Film Festival, US

 A Documentary Competition

Award-winning filmmaker Stanley Nelson (Wounded Knee, Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple, The Murder of Emmett Till) returns to the Sundance Film Festival with his latest documentary FREEDOM RIDERS, the powerful, harrowing and ultimately inspirational story of six months in 1961 that changed America forever. From May until November 1961, more than 400 black and white Americans risked their lives—and many endured savage beatings and imprisonment—for simply traveling together on buses and trains as they journeyed through the Deep South. Deliberately violating Jim Crow laws, the Freedom Riders’ belief in non-violent activism was sorely tested as mob violence and bitter racism greeted them along the way.

FREEDOM RIDERS features testimony from a fascinating cast of central characters: the Riders themselves, state and federal government officials, and journalists who witnessed the rides firsthand.

“I got up one morning in May and I said to my folks at home, I won’t be back today because I’m a Freedom Rider. It was like a wave or a wind that you didn’t know where it was coming from or where it was going, but you knew you were supposed to be there.” — Pauline Knight-Ofuso, Freedom Rider

Despite two earlier Supreme Court decisions that mandated the desegregation of interstate travel facilities, black Americans in 1961 continued to endure hostility and racism while traveling through the South. The newly inaugurated Kennedy administration, embroiled in the Cold War and worried about the nuclear threat, did little to address domestic Civil Rights.See the source image

“It became clear that the Civil Rights leaders had to do something desperate, something dramatic to get Kennedy’s attention. That was the idea behind the Freedom Rides—to dare the federal government to do what it was supposed to do, and see if their constitutional rights would be protected by the Kennedy administration,” explains Raymond Arsenault, author of Freedom Riders: 1961 and the Struggle for Racial Justice, on which the film is partially based.

Organized by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), the self-proclaimed “Freedom Riders” came from all strata of American society—black and white, young and old, male and female, Northern and Southern. They embarked on the Rides knowing the danger but firmly committed to the ideals of non-violent protest, aware that their actions could provoke a savage response but willing to put their lives on the line for the cause of justice.

Each time the Freedom Rides met violence and the campaign seemed doomed, new ways were found to sustain and even expand the movement. After Klansmen in Alabama set fire to the original Freedom Ride bus, student activists from Nashville organized a ride of their own. “We were past fear. If we were going to die, we were gonna die, but we can’t stop,” recalls Rider Joan Trumpauer-Mulholland. “If one person falls, others take their place.”

Later, Mississippi officials locked up more than 300 Riders in the notorious Parchman State Penitentiary. Rather than weaken the Riders’ resolve, the move only strengthened their determination. None of the obstacles placed in their path would weaken their commitment.

The Riders’ journey was front-page news and the world was watching. After nearly five months of fighting, the federal government capitulated. On September 22, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued its order to end the segregation in bus and rail stations that had been in place for generations. “This was the first unambiguous victory in the long history of the Civil Rights Movement. It finally said, ‘We can do this.’ And it raised expectations across the board for greater victories in the future,” says Arsenault.

“The people that took a seat on these buses, that went to jail in Jackson, that went to Parchman, they were never the same. We had moments there to learn, to teach each other the way of nonviolence, the way of love, the way of peace. The Freedom Ride created an unbelievable sense: Yes, we will make it. Yes, we will survive. And that nothing, but nothing, was going to stop this movement,” recalls Congressman John Lewis, one of the original Riders.

Says Stanley Nelson, “The lesson of the Freedom Rides is that great change can come from a few small steps taken by courageous people. And that sometimes to do any great thing, it’s important that we step out alone.”

CREDITS
A Stanley Nelson Film
A Firelight Media Production for AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

Produced, Written and Directed by
Stanley Nelson

Produced by
Laurens Grant

Edited by
Lewis Erskine, Aljernon Tunsil

Archival Producer
Lewanne Jones

Associate Producer
Stacey HolmanDirector of Photography
Robert Shepard

Composer
Tom Phillips

Music Supervisor
Rena Kosersky

Based in part on the book Freedom Riders by
Raymond Arsenault

AMERICAN EXPERIENCE is a production of WGBH Boston.
Senior producer
Sharon Grimberg

Executive producer
Mark Samels

~ Culture & History

Patricia Robert Harris ~ Women’s History Month
National Museum of African American History and Culture
Lonnie Bunch, museum director, historian, lecturer, and author, is proud to present A Page From Our American Story, a regular on-line series for Museum supporters. It will showcase individuals and events in the African American experience, placing these stories in the context of a larger story — our American story.
A Page From Our American Story
A Higher Standard: Patricia Roberts Harris
Patricia Roberts Harris sworn in as US Ambassador to Luxembourg
Patricia Harris in her swearing in ceremony
to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Provided by the U.S. State Department.

Black women have always served a critical role in the African American community, from the names we all know — Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Rosa Parks — to today’s young mother fighting for educational opportunities for her children. Others have quietly broken barriers to open doors that were once closed to people of color.

Patricia Roberts Harris is one of those quiet warriors whose life stands as a testament to excellence, tenacity, and commitment to change.

She was born on May 31, 1924, the daughter of Hildren and Bert Roberts, in Mattoon, Illinois. A product of Illinois public schools, Harris attended Howard University in Washington, D.C., on scholarship and graduated summa cum laude in 1945. From early in her life as a brilliant scholar at Howard, she went on to become the first African American woman to serve as a United States ambassador and later the first African American woman to serve as a Cabinet Secretary. Harris was a powerful influence in American politics and a major figure during the Civil Rights Movement.

After graduation from Howard, she went back to the mid-west and began graduate work at the University of Chicago in 1946. But the opportunity to become actively involved in working for social justice drew her back to Washington, D.C. She continued her graduate work at American University, and, at the same time, served as assistant director for the American Council of Human Rights. She also served as the first national executive director of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., of which she was a member.

At the encouragement of her husband, William Beasley Harris, a prominent attorney in the District, Harris enrolled in The George Washington University Law School, where she graduated in 1960, first in her class.

During this time, while still active in the fight for civil rights, Harris became increasingly involved in the Democratic Party. Her ability to organize and manage did not go unnoticed. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy selected Harris to co-chair the National Women’s Committee for Civil Rights, described as an “umbrella organization encompassing some 100 women’s groups throughout the nation.”

In October of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson appointed Harris ambassador to Luxembourg, making her the first African American woman to be chosen as a United States envoy. For Harris the historic moment was bittersweet, saying, “I feel deeply proud and grateful this President chose me to knock down this barrier, but also a little sad about being the ‘first Negro woman’ because it implies we were not considered before.”

With the change of administration in 1968, Harris’ diplomatic role ended. She returned to Washington, D.C., and became the first woman to serve as Dean of Howard University’s School of Law.

In the early 1970s, Harris’ involvement in the Democratic Party culminated in her being named chairman of the powerful credentials committee and an at-large-delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 thrust Harris into the spotlight, again for another “first.” Shortly after taking office in 1977, Carter selected Harris to become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Again Harris made history, this time by not only becoming the first African American woman to become a Cabinet Secretary, but also the first to be in the line of succession to the Presidency, at number 13.

During her confirmation hearing, Senator William Proxmire challenged her nomination and asked her if she felt capable of representing the interests of the poor and less fortunate in America. By this time in Harris’ life she had established herself as not only a recognized leader for civil rights, but also as a prominent corporate lawyer and businesswoman. Some, including a few black leaders, wondered if Harris had grown out of touch with the very people she was charged with serving.

Harris’ answer silenced her critics and perhaps best explains what motivated her throughout her life:

“Senator, I am one of them. You do not seem to understand who I am. I am a black woman, the daughter of a dining car waiter. …a black woman who could not buy a house eight years ago in parts of the District of Columbia. I didn’t start out as a member of a prestigious law firm, but as a woman who needed a scholarship to go to school. If you think I have forgotten that, you are wrong…if my life has any meaning at all, it is that those who start out as outcasts may end up being part of the system.”

 

US Postal Stamp of Patricia Roberts Harris

During her tenure as HUD Secretary, she helped reshape the focus of the department. A staunch supporter of housing rehabilitation, Harris funneled millions of dollars into upgrading deteriorating neighborhoods rather than wiping them out through slum clearance. She developed a Neighborhood Strategy Program that subsidized the renovation of apartments in deteriorated areas. In addition, she expanded the Urban Homesteading Plan and initiated Urban Development Action Grants to lure businesses into blighted areas. She poured millions of dollars into renovating deteriorating housing projects throughout the nation.

Harris was so effective in her post, that when HUD was split to create two new entities — the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — Carter moved quickly to name Harris secretary of HHS, a position she held for the remainder of his administration.

In 1982, following an unsuccessful bid to become mayor of Washington, D.C., Harris became a full-time professor at The George Washington University National Law Center. She passed away on March 23, 1985 at the age of 60.

In January, 2000, the U.S. Postal Service honored Ms. Harris with a commemorative postage stamp bearing her likeness. Dignitaries from around the nation attended the unveiling ceremony at Howard University, her alma mater, to pay tribute and recognize her contribution to the nation. In addition, Howard created the Harris Public Service Program in her honor to augment its course offerings in public policy and to encourage students to consider careers in public service.

Patricia Roberts Harris’ life is a powerful chapter in our American story. “I am one of them…,” she said at her 1977 hearing to become HUD Secretary. Those words underscored her commitment to social justice and her sense of responsibility to the African American community and to the nation. Those words serve as testament to her life and legacy: political pioneer, successful businesswoman, educator, and champion for civil and equal rights.
All the best,
Lonnie Bunch, Director

Lonnie Bunch
Director
The National Museum of African American History and Culture is the newest member of the Smithsonian Institution’s family of extraordinary museums.

The Museum will be far more than a collection of objects.
The Museum will be a powerful, positive force in the national discussion about race and the important role African Americans have played in the American story — a museum that will make all Americans proud.