You can be a racist in America like Obama as long as it was a long time ago

You can be a racist in America like Obama and Shirley Sherrod as long as it was a long time ago, the White Farmer problem was a long time ago so its o.k. now. Shirley Sherrod will take you to court, leave you stranded, not do her job, complain about the rich and poor, make her actions based on black and white.

You can now say anything you want about anything you want as long as you end the story in the proper way.

Slavery was o.k. because that was a long time ago.

Don't worry about Barry Soetoro, that was a long time ago,

Don't worry about Hitler, Stalin and other killers, that was a long time ago.

Don't worry about Iran because that was a long time ago.

Don't worry about the BP oil spill, that was a long time ago.

Don't worry about Media Corruption, that was a long time ago...oops..worry

The American Public Now Understands How the Media and Goverment Conspire against the people and the constitution of the United States of America

The American Public Now Understands How the Media and Goverment Conspire against the people and the constitution of the United States of America.

The Corrupt Media Plans To Call You A Racists Time Politico Huffington Post Baltimore Sun Guardian Salon New Republic Corruption Daily Caller Finds the Truth The Conspiracy of the Media Exposed

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.



In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”







Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz0uJAcIDto

Fact Sheet Black Farmers Class Action Lawsuit Barack Hussein Obama appoints another Corrupt LITTLE CZAR USDA Shirley Sherrod while the Main Stream Media Sleeps Wines Dines White House Influence

FACT SHEET on BLACK FARMERS CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT




In June 2008, Congress passed "The Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008" (PL 110-246) which contains Section 14012 that provides a new opportunity for “late claim filers” in the Pigford Black Farmers Class Action Lawsuit to have their cases heard. This section permits Black farmers to file a legal action in the same court (U. S. District Court in Washington, D. C.) that heard the original case.



To be included in this new case (Pigford 2), farmers must meet two basic “tests”. First, they must have filed a “late claim” in the original case (Pigford 1) and second they must meet the requirements to be part of the class in the original case. A group of lawyers for Black farmers have already filed a case in the D. C. District Court. Some of the final decisions on the interpretation and implementation of these provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill will depend the decisions and rulings of the judge in this new case.



The first test is where are you on the “time line” of this case. The priority consideration goes to those Black farmers who filed a late claim petition between October 12, 1999 and September 15, 2000. Most of these 65,000 farmers had their late claim denied by Michael Lewis, Chief Arbitrator in the case and Section 14012 of the 2008 Farm Bill was designed to override these denials and give Black farmers another chance to have their cases heard.



The judge will determine how far to extend the definition of a late filer in the case (please see the time lines below). Those who filed by the late claim deadline of September 15, 2000 have the best chance. Those who filed after this date will have to depend on the decision of the judge in the case. Those who did not file a late claim with the Claims Facilitator in Portland, Oregon, and did not receive a tracking number, have a more limited chance, which is subject to the judge’s rulings in the case.



Farmers may call the Claims Facilitator in Portland, Oregon at 800-646-2873 to determine if they filed a late claim, the date of their claim and their tracking number, if one was issued to the farmer.



The second test for farmers is that they must meet the requirements of the class in the original Pigford lawsuit. They must be able to answer “yes” to all three questions, which form the basis of their actual claim in the case. These three questions are:



1. Are you an African- American who farmed, or attempted to farm at anytime between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996?



2. Between January 1, 1981 and December 31, 1996, did you apply or attempt to participate in a farm loan program or other benefit program with USDA?



3. Between January 1, 1981 and July 1, 1997, did you make a verbal or written complaint of discrimination against USDA concerning treatment you received in the application process? The discrimination complaint may have been presented directly to USDA or to some other public official.



Time Lines in the Pigford Lawsuit (Pigford 1 and Pigford 2)



October 9, 1998 – Class Certification in Pigford granted by the Court



April 14, 1999 – Consent Decree Approved

The court approves the Consent Decree (what the parties agreed to in the

settlement) after a Fairness Hearing.



October 12, 1999 – Deadline for Claim Sheets to be Submitted

Six months after approval of Consent Decree: 21,776 individuals filed a claim by

this date and were considered eligible by the facilitator.



July 14, 2000 – Court Ruling for Late Filers

The court ruled that individuals could send in an application to provide information about the extraordinary circumstances (as spelled out in Section 5g of the Consent Decree) as to why they missed the October 12, 1999 deadline. The deadline for the late filers was September 15, 2000.



September 15, 2000 – Late Filers “Application” Deadline

For those who did not submit a claim by October 12, 1999, there was an opportunity to submit an “application/affidavit” to the arbitrator to explain why the October 1999 deadline was missed. The person had to convince the arbitrator of the extraordinary circumstances that prevented him or her from submitting a claim. 65,000 farmers filed during this period and all were given tracking nukbers by the arbitrator.



October 15, 2000 - Additional Late Filers

10,000 additional people sent in an “application/affidavit” to the aribitrator 30 days after the September 15, 2000 deadline for late filers some of whom said their form had been sent on time. All of these were given tracking numbers.



2003 - Arbitrator Ends Providing Tracking Numbers

Farmers continued to call the arbitrator and were given tracking numbers until 2003.

Dr. Gordon Nembhard was a Visiting Scholar and Senior Urban Fellow at Brown University Annenberg Institute Barack Hussein Obama

Dr. Gordon Nembhard was a


Visiting Scholar and Senior Urban Fellow at Brown University Annenberg Institute for

School Reform from June 1998-June 2000. She is Treasurer of the National Economic

Association (NEA). Jessica Gordon Nembhard earned a Ph.D. and an M.A. in economics

from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1992 and 1989, respectively). She earned

her B.A. degree, magna cum laude, in Literature and African American Studies from Yale

University (1978);

Dauphin County Pa ACORN Barack Hussein Obama Money Power Corruption Racism Socialism Communism in Every Little Town Harrisburg Pa ACORN Marsico John Goshert Charles Jackson

A voter registration drive by a national organization is being investigated by Dauphin County authorities after election officials raised questions about more than 100 of the forms.




Charles Jackson, a spokesman for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, said that his organization fired a temporary employee involved in collecting registrations and that it has been cooperating with Dauphin County detectives.



Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr. confirmed last week the investigation by county detectives is “ongoing.” John Goshert, head county detective, said a former ACORN worker had been questioned, but has not been charged with any criminal offense.

USDA grant on the economic impact of black cooperatives funded by the USDA produces Racism Radical Black Klanish Thoughts and Actions Cash Awards Lawsuits Power Influence Brokering Black Only Think Tanks

Gordon Nembhard is the recipient of a Henry C. Welcome Fellowship Grant from the


Maryland Higher Education Commission (2001-2004), and a USDA grant on the economic

impact of cooperatives through the University of Wisconsin’s Center for Cooperatives to

study wealth accumulation through cooperative ownership.

Cooperative Ownership in the Struggle for African The Democracy Collaborative communities of color suffering from institutional racism and economic inequality W.E.B. Du Bois

Cooperative Ownership in the Struggle for African


American Economic Empowerment

Jessica Gordon Nembhard, Ph.D.

African American Studies, and

The Democracy Collaborative

University of Maryland, College Park

1228 Tawes Hall

College Park, MD 20742

jgnembhard@civilsociety.umd.edu

301-405-6220

September 2004

To appear in Humanity and Society Vol. 28, No. 3 August 2004.

Reflection Statement:

I am a political economist. I specialize in “democratic community economics.” I study people-centered local

economic development that is community-based and controlled, collaborative, democratically (or at least broadly)

owned and governed through a variety of structures. These structures include worker, producer and consumer

owned cooperatives; community land trusts; democratic ESOPs (Employee Stock Ownership Programs) and other

forms of worker ownership and self-management. Also included are collective not-for-profit organizations;

municipally owned enterprises; community development financial institutions and credit unions; communitycontrolled

community development corporations, and community-controlled development planning. My analysis

includes the theoretical and applied study of how and why such alternative structures are economically viable and

sustainable, the public policies that are supportive of such development, and ways to document and measure their

traditional and non-traditional economic, social and political outcomes and impacts.

Much of my research on alternative democratic community-based economic development focuses on how to bring

economic empowerment and prosperity to underdeveloped, marginalized and underserved communities, particularly

communities of color suffering from institutional racism and economic inequality. I also focus on how to measure

the effectiveness of such strategies, particularly as they address structural inequality. I am beginning to formulate a

concept I term “subaltern cooperative economic development” to describe the process and strategy through which

members of subaltern populations (communities economically marginalized and culturally subordinate to a

dominant class or material group) use strong group identity and concern for community to develop productive,

collaborative, cooperative economic enterprises.

I have begun a project to study, theorize and write about African American participation in and design of alternative

democratic economic strategies, and am working on a book tentatively entitled “African American Cooperative

Economic Thought and Practice.” I am in the process of discovering, documenting, and analyzing African American

cooperative economic, political and social thought from scholars and activists about the strengths and weaknesses of

cooperative ownership for economic and social advancement. My focus is on how African American scholars and

activists over the past 300 years view cooperative economics, and to analyze cooperative enterprise development as

a strategy for African Americans - particularly as a mechanism to control their own income and wealth generation

through economic forms that reflect their social and economic values and delivery benefits broadly. I begin with the

work of W.E.B. Du Bois who argued that African Americans should be at the forefront of the innovation and

practice of new industrial organizations that would be democratic and empowering. In 1907 he documented the

myriad cooperative economic efforts of Blacks in the United States. The second purpose of my book is to update

that study. I have begun to document African American cooperative enterprises, particularly urban businesses, and

to investigate into their viability, the processes that have gone into their development and sustainability, any

innovations utilized or developed, and individual cooperative’s impact on both members and the surrounding

community.

“Cooperative Ownership in the Struggle for African American Economic Empowerment” is a part of this larger

project. In this article I highlight several African American cooperatives particularly as a part of a broad urban

democratic economic development strategy. I discuss what is known about their development and successes (and/or

failures), and begin to delineate lessons learned from these efforts.

1

Cooperative Ownership in the Struggle for African American Economic Empowerment

- Jessica Gordon Nembhard

-

The Conference regards the economic development of the Negro American at present as in a

critical state. The crisis arises not so much because of idleness or even lack of skill as by reason

of the fact that they unwittingly stand hesitating at the cross roads - one way leading to the old

trodden ways of grasping fierce individualistic competition ... the other way leading to

co-operation in capital and labor, the massing of small savings, the wide distribution of capital

and more general equality of wealth and comfort.

-Resolutions of the 12th Annual Atlantic Conference May 28, 1907 (Du Bois, 1907: 4).

It is the opinion of the writer, based on several years of study of co-operation and having sat in

two of the National Co-operative Congresses, that co-operation offers great promise of being the

solution for the economic riddle confronting the Negro, just as it has been a way out for other

oppressed groups for over three-quarters of a century.

- (Matney, 1930: 49)

The economic basis of African life was originally cooperative. ... [C]ooperation was one of

nature’s more important schemes for survival.

-(Williams, 1961: 151)

I still believe that black people in the United States could lift the burden of economic

exploitation from their backs by organizing a nationwide system of cooperative businesses

through which they could produce and distribute to themselves and others, such consumer needs

as food, clothing, household goods and credit. Such a system would include ... credit unions, ...

consumer cooperative retail stores, ... producer cooperatives.

- (Reddix, 1974: 119)

African Americans have a long and strong history of cooperative ownership, especially in

reaction to market failures and economic racial discrimination. However, it has often been a

hidden history and one thwarted by racism and white supremacist violence.1 Several African

American scholars and leaders have advocated for economic cooperation as an important

strategy for Black economic development and increased quality of life. Some leaders have

actually practiced cooperative economics in their communities. Although all of them are well

known for achievements in other areas (and not for their involvement in the cooperative

movement), examples include scholar/activist William E.B. Du Bois (1907, 1933, 1975); activist

Marcus Garvey (Shipp, 1996: 87-88); businesswoman Nannie H. Burroughs (Hope, 1940: 46);

activist and organizer Ella Jo Baker (Grant, 1998: 30-36; Ransby, 2003:75-90; and Cohen, 2003:

10-13); writer, journalist and satirist George Schuyler (Schuyler, 1930 and 1932; Calvin, 1931;

Ransby, 2003: 80-90; and Cohen, 2003:10-13); historian E. Franklin Frazier (1923: 228-229);

former Jackson State College (now University) President Jacob Reddix (1974: 117-121); and

Black labor leader and organizer A. Philip Randolph, and the Ladies Auxiliary of the

Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, (Cohen, 2003: 9). Maulana Karenga (1989) included both

2

Ujima - the collective work and responsibility of African Americans toward their communityand

Ujamma -cooperative economics- in addition to self-determination among the seven

Kwanzaa principles.2 Throughout his life, Du Bois argued that African Americans must become

the masters of their own economic destiny, and advocated using “intelligent [consumer

economic] cooperation” as an important approach. He advanced the concept and strategy of

“racial economic cooperation” combining cooperative industries and services in a “group

economy,” through which African Americans could gain control over their economic lives, and

assert themselves as equals into, even leaders in, the mainstream economy.3 Schuyler advocated

similarly, “As I have pointed out again and again … there is only one thing that can immediately

get the Negro group out of the barrel and that is consumers’ cooperation, the building up of a

Negro co-operative democracy within the shell of our present capitalist system of production and

distribution” (1930: 9). He called on African American youth to lead the movement (Schuyler,

1930 and 1932; and Calvin 1931)). Matney (1930) similarly was articulate about how

cooperatives offer a solution to “the economic riddle confronting the Negro” (p. 49). Several

decades later, Reddix (1974) also concluded that a “nationwide system of [African American]

cooperative businesses” “could lift the burden of economic exploitation” from the backs of

African Americans (p. 119).

This article explores the use of cooperative enterprises for African American economic

development and empowerment. I begin by briefly summarizing the economic condition of

African Americans, which inspires the search for alternative economic development strategies

and a variety of economic options. I provide a sample of the thinking of African American

scholars and activists about the use of cooperatives as a strategy for increased economic

empowerment. The next section explores cooperative businesses as an urban economic

development strategy and highlights examples of African American cooperatives (mostly urban

and business cooperatives4) and federations. I end by summarizing recurrent themes that emerge

from these examples and a preliminary research agenda.

The Problem, and Alternative Solutions

African American economic conditions continue to lag behind mainstream populations,

particularly European Americans. A disproportionate number of Africans are poor and

impoverished or ‘one paycheck away’ from poverty even during relatively prosperous times. For

many workers of color, in particular, the last 25 years have been a history of lost jobs, low wages

and disproportionate displacement (see Darity and Mason, 1998, for example). In addition to the

well-known income gap, a large wealth gap persists between African Americans and white

Americans, even at the same educational, income, and/or occupational levels (see Kunjafu, 2002;

and Oliver and Shapiro, 1997). For every dollar of wealth white Americans hold as a group, for

example, African Americans have only 16 cents.5 The shortcomings of the economic ‘boom’ in

the U.S. in the late 1990s show that modest gains were finally made for most in the last four

years of the boom, but trends in inequality continued and wealth inequality actually worsened.

The downturn that then ushered in the 21st century has been typical - hitting the least able to

sustain it the hardest, particularly with rising unemployment and poverty. Poverty, job insecurity,

cut backs in social programs and economic discrimination resurfaced - reminding us that the

basic issues of the inefficiency of the market and discrimination in the marketplace continue.

3

The limitations of the so-called ‘new economy’ illustrate the failures of traditional

economic strategies. Most traditional economic models address the needs of an élite but leave

the rest behind. Traditional economic development strategies or mainstream economic

institutions have not adequately served low-income communities. Fairbairn, et. al., for example,

argue that “Conventional development, which provides limited encouragement to conventional

entrepreneurs, is ill-suited to helping communities who are victimized by the operations of

national and global markets” (1991: 11). In 1994 The United Nations Development Program

summarized the need for a new economic development paradigm:

To address the growing challenge of human security, a new development

paradigm is needed that puts people at the center of development, regards

economic growth as a means and not an end, protects the life opportunities of

future generations as well as the present generations and respects the natural

systems on which all life depends.

... A major restructuring of the world’s income distribution, production and

consumption patterns may therefore be a necessary precondition for any viable

strategy for sustainable human development.

Community-based economic development efforts are often established to meet the needs

of marginalized and/or underserved communities and populations. Haynes and Nembhard (1999)

suggest that “Many who worry about the survival of our cities recognize that collaboration and

cooperation are and will continue to be critical elements in any strategy of community

revitalization.” Fairbairn, et. al. (1991: 1) elaborate:

For decades, co-operatives in market economies have arisen where there are market

deficiencies – imperfect competition, excessive concentrations of power, and unmet

needs. They have arisen, too, where the costs of adjustment to economic change have

threatened to destroy communities, where local people needed power to control the pace

and direction of change in order to preserve what they valued. Look for the market

deficiencies, look for the costs of change – look for the need – and find the niche where a

co-op may thrive.

Cooperative enterprises combine the productive activity and commitment of members with their

shared resources to produce competitive businesses that benefit members and their communities.

Cooperatives have been used throughout history to meet people’s economic needs. In both rural

and urban settings cooperatives promote control over income and wealth, economic anchoring

and security, consumer education and on-the-job training, improved worker-management

relations, leadership development, and reduce costs. Worker ownership in particular increases

control over work rules, increases productivity, and provides living wages, benefits, meaningful

work, education and training, opportunities for advancement, and wealth accumulation. In

addition, more research is finding that cooperative ownership can and has been used to aid in

poverty reduction, particularly when used as part of a self-determination strategy (see Birchall,

2003).

4

A strong argument can be made and is beginning to be articulated for increased

cooperative development as a community economic development strategy. Cooperatives

now exist in a variety of sectors: farming and marketing, utilities and

telecommunications, grocery, baking, auto and bicycle repair, printing and copying, child

care, home health care, medical services, house cleaning, sewing, catering, temporary

services, as well as credit and housing, for example. Cooperatives in many sectors,

particularly worker-owned co-ops, lead their industries in wages and benefits,

production, flexibility and innovation, and self-management and “labor”-management

inter-cooperation. Fairbairn, et. al. (1991) find that “Cooperatives and communityoriented

enterprises have a role to play in generating new economic activity in their local

communities (41),” and show how cooperatives use capital for local purposes, and

reinvest or redistribute the accumulated surpluses back into the original community.

There have been many proposals for strategies or a movement to focus African American

economic development around African American interests and needs, including Black

capitalism, “Buy Black” campaigns, the separation of “Black Belt” states, the “Back to Africa”

movement, the Black Panther “survival programs pending political revolution” and the Black

cooperative movement. In the early 20th century a few African American scholars wrote about

using cooperatives as a strategy. In addition to Du Bois (who promoted the use of cooperatives

in his own writings and in the pages of the NAACP organ that he edited, the Crisis), Schuyler,

Matney, and Reddix, among others, Frazier (1923) suggests that cooperative marketing societies,

cooperative supply associations and credit unions are important enterprises for African

Americans. He argues that cooperative education and leadership are necessary to promote such

developments and to “liberate the Negro from the present share crop system of farming” (229).

Similarly, Crump (1941), after explaining and describing what cooperatives are and how many

there are in the country, discusses the need for more education. “People have to be educated

away from old habits of buying and into new habits of recognizing true value” (319). She finds

that this lack of education helps explain why more African Americans do not use co-ops as part

of a movement to help “keep profits at home.”

Matney (1930), in a four part series in the Crisis Magazine, sets out the economic

situation for African Americans in the late 1920s, the successes of cooperatives, and a plan of

action for their adoption in Black communities (49). He suggests a “period of education” to

study the history, accomplishment and possibilities of cooperative businesses, the relation of the

cooperative movement to other movements for human betterment, the creation of consumer

consciousness; and education in business theory and practice, and cooperative business methods.

He also suggests that an economic, religious and social appeal be developed, and a research and

publicity bureau created to provide a clearinghouse of information, give advice for startups and

technical assistance to cooperative businesses. He also emphasizes the need to “standardize

methods.”

In the process of galvanizing support for cooperative development, Schuyler issued a call

in an open letter (a four page circular) in early 1930. He particularly called on young Blacks –

“Young Negroes!” – to save the race through cooperative economics (see Schuyler, 1930;

Calvin, 1931; and Ransby, 2003: 82). Schuyler explains in his column in the Pittsburgh Courier:

5

What I am trying to get together 5,000 young people for is to study this only means of

economic salvation and carry the message to all corners of Negro America. … The Negro

… is in a worse position than the masses of white workers, actually with his back to the

wall, and so he must work faster in developing this Negro co-operative democracy if he

is to survive. … Whereas the Socialists hope to usher in such a Utopia society by the

ballot and the Communists hope to turn the trick with the bullet, the co-operator … is

slowly and methodically doing so through legal, intelligent economic co-operation or

mutual aid (1930: 9).

Ransby suggests that “the idea of forming black consumer cooperatives as a strategy to combat

the economic devastation being wreaked by the depression and to educate black people about

socialism galvanized the group of intellectuals and activists that gathered around Schuyler” (82).

This group organized the Young Negroes’ Co-operative League (more below). Ransby

summarizes: “Baker and her idealistic young comrades hoped [to] demonstrate on a small scale

the efficiency of collective economic planning and simultaneously promote the values of

interdependency, group decision making, and the sharing of resources” (86). According to

Ransby, from Baker’s perspective

The cooperative movement offered organizers a way of working with people on a

protracted, day-to-day basis. The process of setting up co-ops, establishing common

priorities for those involved, solidifying democratic methods of decision making, and

building communications networks encouraged people at the grassroots to engage in

social change and transformation, changing themselves, each other, and the world around

them simultaneously. Unlike such singular events as voting on election day or attending a

political rally, involvement in cooperatives and buying clubs enabled people to redefine

the ways in which they related to neighbors, friends, and co-workers (p. 90).

In 1907 Du Bois documented the existence of 154 African American-owned

cooperatives: 14 “producer cooperatives”; three “transportation cooperatives”; 103 “distribution

or consumer cooperatives,” and 34 “real estate and credit cooperatives”; in addition to hundreds

of mutual aid societies and cooperative projects through religious and benevolence institutions,

beneficial and insurance societies, secret societies, schools, and financial institutions (Du Bois,

1907). Du Bois summarizes his views in a speech presented at the Rosenwald Economic

Conference in 1933:

... I propose as the next step, which the American Negro can give to the world a

new and unique gift. We have tried song and laughter and with rare good humor a

bit condescending the world has received it; we have given the world work, hard,

backbreaking labor and the world has let black John Henry die breaking his heart

to beat the machine. It is now our business to give the world an example of

intelligent cooperation so that when the new industrial commonwealth comes we

can go into it as an experienced people and not again be left on the outside as

mere beggars.

... if leading the way as intelligent cooperating consumers, we rid ourselves of the ideas

6

of a price system and become pioneer servants of the common good, we can enter the

new city as men(sic) and not mules (Du Bois, 1933: 162-163). 6

There were African American owned cooperatives in the 19th century, many examples of

African American cooperatives throughout the decades of the 20th century, particularly in the

1930s, and efforts have continued on into the 21st century.

Cooperatives and Urban Economic Development

Cooperative development helps to address underdevelopment and isolation in inner

cities. Many inner-city challenges lend themselves to cooperative solutions. Resident ownership

and individual and community entrepreneurship address issues of the export of capital and

industry from cities, to suburbs and overseas. Credit unions and pooling of capital help to

address the lack of banking services, redlining, and predatory lending in urban areas. Employee

ownership (and some Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPS)) create and save decent,

meaningful jobs, and promote workplace democracy, income generation and wealth

accumulation. Many recent inner-city worker-owned cooperatives lead their industries in

providing living wages, often with health and vacation benefits, job stability and mobility,

training, and self-management. Cooperative home ownership and Community Land Trusts

address lack of affordable housing, skyrocketing property values, and abandoned properties as

well as increasing community control of land, and home ownership. Cooperative ownership also

helps to address skills mismatches, lack of appropriate skills, and poor quality of education in

inner cities because cooperatives have a strong education mission and record. Cooperatives build

capacity among members, continuously educate and train their members to fulfill the needed

expertise, and increase members’ own growth and contribution to the enterprise.

The Chesapeake Marine Railway and Dry Dock Company

Between 1865 and 1883, African American caulkers and stevedores owned their own

cooperative, the Chesapeake Marine Railway and Dry Dock Company in Baltimore, Maryland.

According to Du Bois’ (1907: 152-153) account, they organized in part to combat the growing

sentiment among white laborers in Maryland that all free Blacks be fired from the shipyards and

leave the state or “get a master.” Baltimore had become famous for its caulking, but it was the

Black caulkers who “were the most proficient in the state.” Ship yard owners were not willing to

reduce their Black workforce until white mobs attacked Black caulkers and stevedores on their

way home and white carpenters boycotted ship yards with African American caulkers. A group

of Black men decided they needed to own their own shipyard, protect and secure jobs for

themselves.

The cooperative was quite successful. The Chesapeake Marine Railway cooperative

bought the property that included the spot where Frederick Douglas described sitting on a cellar

door to study a stolen spelling book to teach himself how to read. The founders raised $40,000

selling 8,000 shares at $5 per share. They paid off their $30,000 mortgage in 5 years and

employed from 100-200 Black and white people per year. By the 6th year they paid members a

stock dividend (totaling $14,000). In the 7th year they paid out a dividend of ten percent to

members; and for four years after that paid dividends of between four and ten percent per year.

7

The company went out of business in the 18th year in part because of repair problems, some

changes in the industry, and management issues, but also because of “the refusal of the owners

of the ground to release the yard to the colored company except at an enormous rate of increase”

(Du Bois, 1907: 153). The ground rent was doubled. The cooperative went out of business soon

after (also see www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/stagser/s1259/121/6050/html/cmrddc.html).

The significance of this cooperative is many fold. The existence and success of the

Chesapeake Marine Railway and Dry Dock Company showed that African Americans could

successfully use cooperative ownership in the face of racial oppression and ostracism,

particularly to save jobs, create jobs, and accumulate wealth. It showed that African Americans

could run a substantial industrial enterprise at a profit; and it changed the nature of industrial

relations in the state. Du Bois enumerates that even after the demise of the company:

The organization of the ship company saved the colored caulkers, for they are

now members of the white caulker’s union. The failure of the whites in driving

out the colored caulkers put an end to their efforts to drive colored labor out of

other fields. And although the company failed, it must surely have been an object

lesson to the whites as well as to the blacks of the power and capability of the

colored people in their industrial development (153).

Citizens’ Cooperative Stores

After attending a meeting called by Du Bois in August 1918 to discuss ways to spread the

adoption of cooperatives among African Americans, a “Mr. Ruddy” returned home to Memphis

and organized a study group (The Editor, 1919). In February 1919, the group incorporated as the

Citizens’ Co-operative Stores to operate cooperative meat markets. They raised more equity than

expected, selling double the amount of the original shares they offered. Members were able to

buy shares in installments and no one could own more than ten shares. By August 1919, five

stores were in operation serving about 75,000 people. The members of the local guilds associated

with each store met monthly to study cooperatives and discuss any issues. According to the

account, the Cooperative planned to own its own buildings and a cooperative warehouse. The

editor of the Crisis Magazine (presumable Du Bois himself) who reported this, notes that:

The good results of co-operation among colored people do not lie alone in the

return of savings. They show, also, new opportunities for the earning of a

livelihood and in the chance offered our colored youth to become acquainted with

business methods. ... [They hire members of the community.] Thus, in a larger

and different sense, we have another form of co-operation. Colored people are

furnishing their own with work and money for services received and the

recipients are handing the money back for re-distribution to the original colored

sources (The Editor, 1919: 50).

This is an example of how advocacy, public education, and self-education work to

promote cooperative development in the Black community. It also illustrates ways to make a

cooperative in a low income community affordable (shares can be bought in installments), and

ways that a cooperative business impacts its own community by hiring local residents and

8

allowing money to re-circulate among all the participants. This is clearly an recurring issue

particularly in inner cities.

The Cooperative Society of Bluefield Colored Institute

The Commercial Department of the Bluefield Colored Institute in Bluefield, West

Virginia, formed a student cooperative store probably in 1925 (Sims, 1925). The store’s mission

was to sell supplies the students and school needed and be a “commercial laboratory for the

application of business theory and practice” (Sims: 93). A share of stock sold in the Co-operative

Society for less than $1. After two years in business the cooperative paid all its debts and owned

its own equipment and inventories (Matney, 1927). The store began to pay dividends of ten

percent on purchases made. The student members voted to use profits to pay for scholarships to

the Secondary School and Junior College (see Sims, 1925, and Matney, 1927). Nine scholarships

were given by July 1927. Members of this cooperative were the first African Americans to attend

the National Cooperative Congress, when they attended the one in Minneapolis in 1926

(Matney). They became members of the Co-operative League of America in 1925.

Again, education and training become important initial and ongoing integral aspects of

cooperative development. Not only does the cooperative educate members about cooperative

ownership and business development, but also profits from the business are used to send

members for higher education degrees. Affordability continues to be a goal – share in the

business are low in price. In addition, the importance of and the documentation of profitability

and solvency - i.e., viability of these economic endeavors- is apparent. Finally, this example also

provides insight into how African American cooperatives asserted themselves into the wider

national cooperative movement by joining the national association and attending national

conferences.

Consumers’ Cooperative Trading Company

In the fall of 1932 Gary, Indiana, was ravaged by the depression, the steel mills were

closed and only one bank remained (and later also closed). Jacob Reddix held a meeting in

Roosevelt High School, which led to the formation of Gary’s Consumers Cooperative Trading

Company (Hope, 1940 and Reddix, 1974). Starting with a buying club, the Trading Company

came to operate a main grocery store, a branch store, a filling station and a credit union. By 1934

there were over 400 members and seven full time employees in the grocery store. The Credit

Union was organized in November 1934. By February 1936, it had over 100 members and

several hundred dollars on deposit (Hope: 41). The first dividend of two percent on shares of

stock owned was paid to members in December 1935 (Hope: 41). In 1936, sales for the

organization were at $160,000 and the company was considered to be “the largest grocery

business operated by Negroes in the United States” (Reddix: 119). The Cooperative Trading

Company supported a young people’s branch that operated its own ice-cream parlor and candy

store.

Reddix is quoted as saying that the “most important single factor” in their progress “has

been our education program” (Hope: 40). They held weekly educational meetings for 18 months

before opening any of the businesses. In 1933 they instituted a cooperative economic course in

Roosevelt High School’s evening school. By 1936 it was the largest academic class in the school

9

(Hope: 41). The Education Committee published a five-year plan for “Uplifting the Social and

Economic Status of the Negro in Gary” in 1934.

Again, many of the same themes, missions and goals are mirrored in this example. Every

organization found education to be one of the most important elements in the endeavor. The

Gary cooperative actually integrated cooperative education into the high school curriculum. This

cooperative society was responding to a need in the community, particularly an economic need.

The Gary cooperative also went further than most by establishing a Credit Union as one of its

cooperatives -to both provide financial services and help members save- and institutionalizing its

education program in the High School. Similar to the others, this cooperative also saw the equal

inclusion of youth as important.

Modern Co-op Grocery Store

Modern Co-op in Harlem, New York City, boasted to be the first “Negro cooperative

grocery store operated according to the Rochdale principles in the northeastern area” (Crump,

1941: 319). Twenty “mostly middle class” African Americans came together to increase the

quality and decrease the cost of their groceries. They researched the business and how to become

a distributor of the Co-op label (through Eastern Cooperative Wholesale). They started with a

buying club. Each member put in $5.00. They operated out of a member’s basement. In April

1941, they began to raise capital for a retail store. The minimum investment per family was set at

$15.00, with about 100 members. The store opened May 31, 1941. By the first summer, average

weekly revenues were about $300, and the enterprise was capitalized at $50,000. Members

received a patronage-rebate rather than a dividend (though it was suspended in the first years

until profits were regularized). From 30-40 percent of Modern’s customers were non-members.

Education was important to the members (Crump: 330). Crump impresses the point that the

President of the Board of Directors was a “housewife.”7

The importance of education, particularly self-education about cooperative economics

again is important in the development and maintenance of this cooperative. How to make

cooperatives a more widely utilized strategy is also a goal. Black women’s roles in this

movement also emerge in from this example. Modern Co-op is also an example of building from

small to large.

Freedom Quilting Bee

The Freedom Quilting Bee, a handicraft cooperative in Alberta, AL, is a charter member

of the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund. It was established in 1966

because the women in sharecropping families needed more and more stable income. The women

began selling quilts and using other entrepreneurial strategies after many of their families lost the

plots they were sharecropping because of their Civil Rights activities.8 It is a cooperative,

democratically owned non-agricultural business developed, owned and managed by African

Americans in response to discrimination and lack of economic opportunity. The cooperative

bought 23 acres in 1968 to build the sewing plant and also to sell land to sharecropping families

who had been evicted from their homes (Freedom Quilting Bee, 2002). At one point the

cooperative, the largest employer in the town, had 150 members. By 1992 the cooperative owned

a day care center, 23 acres of land, a sewing plant; and operated an after school tutoring program

10

and a summer reading program (FSC/LAF, 1992).

At a time when the political climate severely reduced economic options for African

Americans in the south, through this cooperative members were able to augment their family’s

income and save their farms and land, and/or create alternative sustainable economic activity.9

This is also an example of Black women’s leadership, which lead to economic empowerment

and community empowerment. The cooperative continues to exist today, after thirty-seven

years.10

Apex Cab Cooperative

The Apex Cab Cooperative in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, began in January 1973 and closed

at the end of 1974. Although it had a short history it showed that cab ownership was viable for

African Americans.11 (Washington, DC also had an African American owned cooperative cab

company for several years.) The company bought thirty new cabs at start up. One of the

company’s competitive advantages was that the drivers were willing to take passengers to any

part of the city (unlike the white cab companies). After 18 months of relatively successful

operation, they could not afford the high insurance premium. The cooperative went out of

business soon after dropping the group insurance, even though some of the taxi drivers paid their

own insurance premiums. Here a viable concept is thwarted by the inability to obtain affordable

financial services. More research needs to be done to help us better understand the nature and

circumstances of the failure.

Cooperative Home Care Associates

Cooperative Home Care Associates (CHCA) is a worker-owned home health care

cooperative in the South Bronx, New York, started by a “social service agency to create decent

jobs and provide needed services in an impoverished community” in 1985.12 It employs more

than 550 African American and Latina women, seventy-five percent of whom had previously

been dependent on public assistance, as home care paraprofessionals. Since 1987 worker-owners

have earned annual dividends on their initial investment (often between twenty-five and fifty

percent). The co-op maximizes wages and benefits for members, providing paid vacations and

health insurance, and stable employment – all unprecedented in this sector. Throughout its

existence average employee turnover has also been significantly below the industry average, and

education and training above the average. CHCA does careful screening of potential

employees/owners, offers training and career advancement programs, and promotes selfmanagement.

The company has spun off a training and development institute, Paraprofessional

Health Care Institute, that provides benefits to the industry city wide, and helps to develop

similar cooperatives across the U.S.

CHCA lists the following among its accomplishments:

• Over 80% of CHCA's employees share in the cooperative's ownership and elect from among

themselves the majority of people on the Board of Directors.

• CHCA's learner-centered home health aide training is an empowering experience, emphasizing

critical thinking, problem solving and cooperative team building.

11

• CHCA is creating a job ladder within the company. Several aides have become licensed practical

nurses, assistant instructors, or job counselors. A new initiative will allow many workers to be

promoted as "specialized aides".

• CHCA has achieved the status of a "yardstick corporation"--a company valued by government

regulators, union officials, health care administrators and consumer organizations as a trusted

model of excellent home care services.

• CHCA has led the development of a new "quality care through quality jobs" school of thought--the

basis of a United Hospital Fund of New York report entitled, "Better Jobs, Better Care: Building

the Home Care Work Force."

• CHCA‘s creation of quality paraprofessional jobs has also led to the cooperative's consistent

citation by its major contractors as their highest quality provider, with an excellent record of

reliability, competence, high patient satisfaction and low incidence of patient complaints.

• Quality frontline jobs have also been central to CHCA's successful business strategy, with current

annual sales of $9.8 million and profitability for the last nine years. CHCA's worker-owners

typically earn annual dividends of $200-$400 as their share of the company's profits. (www.

paraprofessional.org/Sections/chca.htm.)

This is an example of a company that achieves economic empowerment of low-income

women of color, many of whom relied on public assistance, and in a sector known for its

inadequacies (low paying, unstable, with little job mobility and reinforced working poverty

status). CHCA is a worker-owned company that sets the standard for wages, benefits, training,

and workplace democracy in its industry. It creates a significant number of meaningful jobs in

the community, and generates income and wealth for members. The cooperative is active in

sector development in New York City and has seen the incorporation of training, leadership

development, and advocacy as essential. In addition, CHCA is at the forefront of replicating its

model so that other communities can also benefit.

SSC Employment Agency

SSC Employment Agency in Baltimore, MD is a worker-owned cooperative temporary

services agency.13 It was sponsored by Baltimore BUILD, a community organizing and

advocacy organization, in 1997 to develop a business which would help employ “hard to

employ” local residents, develop their skills and mobility, and provide good jobs with ownership

possibilities. In 2000, the agency placed 260 employees in hospitality jobs. An important part of

the SSC’s mission is to help employees become owners and give them a voice in the agency.

After 160 hours as employees, workers are eligible to apply to become members, at an

investment of $100. In March 2001 there were seventeen worker-owners who elected the

company’s board of directors and received dividends.14 The cooperative is working to help

educate worker-owners about business management and plans to transition to a fully workerowned

company in the near future.

This is an example of an “agency-driven” model -of an active community organization

supporting a business venture with a mission to train and position marginalized low-income

members of the community to be workers and then owners in their own company. These models

which develop and support enterprises that later transition to worker ownership are often quite

12

successful and are becoming popular as a strategy to provide good jobs, living wages, asset

development, and sometimes self-management in low-income, poorly resourced communities.

APR Masonry Arts Corporation:

The APR Masonry Arts Corporation is an African-American worker-owned unionized

masonry construction company.15 African American union bricklayers in Los Angeles, CA, were

underemployed and the union was at a loss for how to remedy the situation. Neither diplomatic

outreach nor litigation had work. After seven years of organizing and fundraising, with help from

the nonprofit organization A. Philip Randolph Educational Fund, the cooperative was launched

in August of 1998. Members invested $5000 each. They have completed jobs at the New

Horizon Middle School in Pasadena, a medical building at the Los Angeles Zoo, and a Boy’s and

Girl’s Club in Watts. They employ youth of color in their apprenticeship programs.

Economic discrimination, lack of opportunity and the need for a solution sensitive to a

particular community contributed to the creation of this business. Several forces came together to

find a solution and support the solution. Its existence has increased diversity of masonry business

ownership in Los Angeles (there were no African American owned union contractors in the

masonry industry in Southern California before). This cooperative is another that understands the

power of incorporating and involving young people early on and provides opportunities to youth

of color in the construction industry.

The Young Negroes’ Co-operative League

The Young Negroes’ Co-operative League is an example of a cooperative federation. It

was founded in December 1930 by about 25-30 African American youth in response to a call by

George Schuyler (Schuyler, 1930 and 1932; also see Calvin 1931). Its goal was to form a

coalition of local cooperatives and buying clubs loosely affiliated in a network of affiliate

councils (Ransby, 2003). Schuyler called for:

• 5,000 charter members, paying a $1 initiation fee, by March 15, 1931;

• a forum in each community where there are five or more members;

• a co-operative enterprise where each council exists, by March 15, 1932;

• a co-operative wholesale establishment in each state by March 15, 1933;

• a co-operative bank in each community where there is a council by March 15, 1934;

• factories to produce such necessities as clothing, food, and shelter by March 15, 1935

(Calvin, 1931:1).

By 1932 the League had formed councils in New York, Philadelphia, Monessen (PA),

Pittsburgh, Columbus (OH), Cleveland, Cincinnati, Phoenix, New Orleans, Columbia (SC),

Portsmouth (VA), and Washington, DC, with a total membership of 400 (Schuyler, 1932). They

intended for the local councils to support cooperative businesses. Buffalo, NY, was the first to

launch a store. This cooperative grocery and meat market was doing $3,000 worth of business

monthly by October 1931 (Pittsburgh Courier, 1931: 1). Philadelphia started a cooperative

newsstand and stationery store by 1932. They held their first national conference in Pittsburgh,

PA, October 18, 1931, with thirty official delegates from member organizations and 600

participants (Pittsburgh Courier, 1931: 1). Schuyler was elected President; and Ella J. Baker,

National Director. The group also resolved to cooperate with the Colored Merchants

13

Association. Both Schuyler and Baker addressed the audience. Schuyler reiterated his call and

the need and potential for economic cooperation in the Black community. Baker closed the

meeting with a discussion of the role and importance of women in the African American

cooperative movement (Pittsburgh Courier, 1931). 16

The first year of the League was devoted to “the study of history, principles and methods

of Rochdale consumers’ cooperation. ... It is our conviction that we must be trained before trying

to lead people” (Schuyler, 1932: 456). Another mission of the League was to keep control of the

organization in the hands of young people; and “to bring women into the League on equal basis

with men” (full inclusion of women). The organization was committed to grassroots,

participatory democracy (Ransby). Members also pledged to involve children and create

Children’s Guilds and Boys and Girls Clubs. The League’s five-year plan included training

5,000 co-op leaders (by 1932), establishing a cooperative wholesale outlet (by 1933), and an

independent college (by 1937) (Ransby:84). The organization had financial difficulties early on

and did not meet most of its goals, however it did grow steadily in the first few years (Ransby),

and was responsible for the launching of many buying clubs and cooperatives (Grant, 1998: 35).

There are few examples of African American cooperative federations in the U.S. The

Young Negroes’ Co-operative League was highly ambitious effort and succeeded in many

endeavors, even its grand vision was not realized. Recurrent themes that emerge from this

example are the importance of internal education, public education, and publicity; of attendance

at and affiliation with national conferences and associations; and the problem of resources and

financing. This example also highlights the larger strategy of networking and building

federations of small local units (often only buying clubs). The commitment to women’s rights

and empowering young people and children as potential leaders in the Black cooperative

movement are relatively new themes that emerge from the example of the League. Members of

the League were clear that cooperative economics was a tool or strategy of a larger movement -

toward the elimination of economic exploitation and the transition to a new social order (Ransby:

86-87).

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund

The Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF) is a network

of rural cooperatives, credit unions, and state associations of cooperatives and cooperative

development centers in the southern United States. The FSC /LAF’s objectives over its 36-year

history are saving Black-owned land and using cooperatives for land-based economic

development to provide “self-help economic opportunities” for low-income communities

(FSC/LAF, 1995, p. 3). The FSC/LAF provides technical assistance, legal assistance, financial

support, education and advocacy for low-income populations in the south.17 The Federation is

the only system of networked co-op development centers, with a training center and

experimental farm, controlled by African Americans in the U.S. today.

The Federation understood from its inception in 1967 the necessity of Black control over

land and African American economic self-sufficiency. During the Civil Rights era, for example,

African American share croppers were thrown off the land and laborers lost their jobs because

they exercised their right to register to vote or even listen to a civil rights speech (also see

14

Freedom Quilting Bee). Agricultural cooperatives, marketing co-ops, credit unions and legal

services provided or supported by the FSC/LAF decreased the economic insecurity and

exploitation imposed by the white plantation bloc, and helped to sustain Black communities on

their own terms. The FSC/LAF is also dedicated to land retention and sustainable farming, and

has helped to slow the progress of Black land loss in the U.S.

Since 1967, for example, the FSC/LAF has helped save/retain in Black ownership $87.5

million worth of land (175,000 acres at an average of $500 per acre); assisted over 700 families

with $26 million worth of affordable housing units constructed and rehabilitated (including four

multi-family rental projects with 126 units); mobilized $50 million in resources for support of

member cooperatives (particularly in sustainable agriculture) and credit unions; facilitated $75

million in sales through cooperative marketing (an average of $2.5 million per year in sales for

the past two decades); and assisted in passing Section 2501 of the 1990 farm bill that created a

new Federal program in USDA to provide outreach and educational services to African-

American and other people-of-color farmers (FSC/LAF, 2002).18

The Federation is an organization of organizations that provides support services and

development centers, networking, and national and state-level advocacy. The Federation

provides education, technical assistance, demonstration projects and legal assistance. The

Federation has a comprehensive vision of support based on a model of self-help and democratic

ownership particularly for low income, rural and African American communities. As a

comprehensive program it includes the development of credit unions and housing cooperatives

along with farming and marketing co-ops. In addition, the Federation publicizes its achievements

in leadership development and the significant roles of women in the organization.

Concluding Remarks

Many different kinds of cooperative ventures have been tried in the Black community. A

few of them are highlighted above. Many Black-owned cooperatives were/are a great success,

particularly as strategies to save costs, provide quality goods and services, increase income,

combat racial discrimination, and increase Black economic stability and self-sufficiency. They

saved and created decent jobs in their communities, and often allowed members and employees

to control their work environment. Organizers and members believed in education and training,

both in relation to their economic ventures and organizational needs. They provided additional

services to their communities and often stabilized them. There have also been failures -often for

lack of enough resources (capitalization), lack of enough specific management experience and

training, and because of poor business planning. On the other hand, there are also many

examples of sabotage -rents increased to exorbitant rates, insurance coverage or other support

services and/or capital withdrawn or not affordable, unfair competition, and other deliberate

subversions. All the cooperatives had grand long-term plans that they did not always achieve,

although many of the initial and intermediate goals were realized -some quite successfully. In

addition, even if short lived, these experiments and experiences had far reaching consequences

for the members and their communities, who were usually better off because of these efforts.

African Americans throughout their history have come together to pool resources, take

15

control of productive assets, and work to create alternative economies in the face of poverty,

limited resources, market failures, and/or racial oppression. Many of the processes have been

similar: join together in the face of a need or a problem, start small and spread the risk widely,

use mutual group self-help as motivation, and continuously engage in education and training.

Through their modest economic empowerment efforts, many of the groups were able to win

greater battles against white landowners, white unions and general economic underdevelopment.

This paper has begun to reconstruct the history of Black cooperativism and explore ways

in which African Americans can be leaders in the development of a cooperative commonwealth.

These examples suggest that there are economic strategies that can bring African Americans and

other marginalized communities some measure of control over their economic lives and

contribute to their own and their community’s economic prosperity. In addition to continuing the

documentation of existing cooperative enterprises and their predecessors, particularly in

communities of color, more research is needed to analyze the successes and failures, and

understand the variety of cooperative ownership structures that are viable. There is more work to

do to evaluate the economic successes and failures, and the economic impacts of cooperatives on

their members and communities, particularly asset building and wealth creation, increased

economic activity and job creation, and leadership development.

References:

Aizcorbe, Ana M., Arthur B. Kennickell, and Kevin B. Moore. 2003. “Recent Changes in U.S.

Family Finances: Evidence from the 1998 and 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances.”

Federal Reserve Bulletin 89 (January): 1-32.

Birchall, Johnston. 2003. Rediscovering the Cooperative Advantage: Poverty reduction through

self-help. Geneva: Cooperative Branch, International Labour Office

Bromell-Tinubu, Gloria. 1999. “Individual and Community Asset-Building through Cooperative

Enterprises: Economic and Social Justifications.” Paper presented at the National

Economic Association/ASSA Annual Meetings, New York, NY, January 3-5.

Calvin, Floyd J. 1931. “Schuyler Launches Program to Awaken Race Consciousness.” The

Pittsburgh Courier 22:6 (February 7): 1 Section I.

Cohen, Lizabeth. 2003. “Black Power of the Purse: A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of

Mass Consumption in Postwar America.” New York: Alfred A. Knopf (accessed on web

from: www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Black-Power-PurseJan03.htm, 9-10-2003).

Cooperative Home Care Associates website, www.paraprofessional.org/Sections/chca.htm.

Crump, Charlotte. 1941. “The Co-op Comes to Harlem.” The Crisis 48: 10 (October): 319, 330.

Curl, John. 2003. “History of Worker Cooperation in America.” www.redcoral.

net/WorkCoops.html, accessed 3-6-2003.

Darity, William A., and Patrick L. Mason. 1998. “Evidence of Discrimination in Employment:

Codes of Color, Codes of Gender.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12:2 (Spring): 63-

90.

DeMarco, Joseph P. 1983. The Social Thought of W.E.B. Du Bois (sic.). Lanham, MD: The

University Press of America.

16

DeMarco, Joseph. 1974. “The Rationale and Foundation of Du Bois’s Theory of Economic

Cooperation.” Phylon XXXV: 1 (March): 5-15.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1975. Dusk of Dawn. Millwood, NY: Krause Thompson.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1933. “Where do we go from Here? (A Lecture on Negroes’ Economic Plight).

An address delivered at the Rosenwald Economic Conference, Washington, DC. May

1933. First published in The Baltimore Afro-American, May 20, 1933. Reprinted in

Andrew G. Paschal, ed., A W.E.B. Du Bois Reader: 146-163. New York: Collier Books,

1971.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1907. Economic Cooperation Among Negro Americans. Atlanta: Atlanta

University Press.

Editor [W.E.B. Du Bois]. 1919. [“Ruddy’s Citizen’s Cooperative Stores”]. The Crisis 19: 2

(December): 48-50.

Fairbairn, Brett, June Bold, Murray Fulton, Lou Hammond Ketilson, Daniel Ish. 1991.

Cooperatives & Community Development: Economics in Social Perspective. Saskatoon,

Saskatchewan: University of Saskatchewan Center for the Study of Cooperatives, revised

1995.

Feldman, Jonathan Michael, and Jessica Gordon Nembhard. 2002. From Community Economic

Development and Ethnic Entrepreneurship to Economic Democracy: The Cooperative

Alternative. Umea, Sweden: Partnership for Multiethnic Inclusion.

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.2002. 35th Anniversary - 2002

Annual Report. East Point, GA: FSC/LAF.

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund (FSC/LAF). 1995. “Five Year

Strategic Plan 1995-1999,” mimeo. East Point, GA: FSC/LAF.

Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.1992. 25th Anniversary, Annual

Report 1967-1992. Atlanta, GA: FSC/LAF.

Fletcher, William and Eugene Newport. 1992. “Race and Economic Development: The Need for

a Black Agenda.” In James Jennings (ed.), Race Politics and Economic Development:

117-130. New York: Verso.

Frazier, E. Franklin. 1923. “Cooperation and the Negro.” The Crisis 25: 5 (March): 228-229.

Freedom Quilting Bee. 2002. www.ruraldevelopment.org/FQBhistory.html. Accessed September

30, 2002.

Glasser, Ruth, and Jeremy Brecher. 2002. We are the Roots: The Organizational Culture of a

Home Care Cooperative. Davis, CA: The Regents of the University of California, Center

for Cooperatives, UC Davis.

Grant, Joanne. 1998. Ella Baker: Freedom Bound. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Haynes, Curtis, Jr. 1999. “Du Bois and Economic Cooperation.” Mimeo, unpublished working

paper. Buffalo State College.

Haynes, Curtis, Jr., and Jessica Gordon Nembhard. 1999. “Cooperative Economics — A

Community Revitalization Strategy.” The Review of Black Political Economy 27:1

(Summer), 25th Anniversary Edition: 47-71.

Hope, John, II. 1940. “Rochdale Cooperation Among Negroes.” Phylon 1:1(first quarter): 39-52.

Johnson, Rebecca.1997. “Poor Women, Work, and Community Development: A Reflection

Paper.” Mimeo. Jamaica Plain, MA: Cooperative Economics for Women.

Karenga, Maulana. 1989. The African American Holiday of Kwanzaa: A Celebration of Family,

Community and Culture. University of Sankore Press.

17

Krimerman, Len, and Frank Lindenfeld. 1992. When Workers Decide: Workplace Democracy

Takes Root in North America. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.

Kunjufu, Jawanza. 2002. Black Economics: Solutions for Economic and Community

Empowerment. 2nd Edition. Chicago: African American Images.

Matney, W.C. 1930. “Exploitation or Co-operation?” The Crisis 37: 2 (February): 48-49, 67.

Matney, W.C. 1927. “Teaching Business.” The Crisis 34: 5 (July): 157, 177-178.

McCulloch, Heather (with Lisa Robinson). 2001. Sharing the Wealth: Resident Ownership

Mechanisms. Oakland, CA: PolicyLink.

National Cooperative Business Association. No date. “Cooperatives Are ... Cooperative Business

in the United States.” Pamphlet, circa 1997. Washington, DC: National Cooperative

Business Association.

Nembhard, Jessica Gordon. Forthcoming. “Entering the New City as Men and Women, Not

Mules.” In Lewis Randolph and Gail Tate (eds.), The Urban Black Community.

Nembhard, Jessica Gordon. “Democratic Economic Participation and Humane Urban

Redevelopment.” Trotter Review, 2000, 26-31.

Nembhard, Jessica Gordon. 1999. “Community Economic Development: Alternative Visions for

the 21st Century.” In John Whitehead and Cobie Kwasi Harris (eds.), Readings in Black

Political Economy: 295-304. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Oliver, Melvin, and Thomas Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on

Racial Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Pittsburgh Courier. 1931. “Schuyler Heads up League.” The Pittsburgh Courier 22:42 (October

24): 1, 4 Section I

Ransby, Barbara. 2003. Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement. Chapel Hill: The

University of North Carolina Press.

Reddix, Jacob L. 1974. A Voice Crying in the Wilderness: The Memoirs of Jacob L. Reddix.

Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

Reynolds, Bruce J. 2001. “A History of African-American Farmer Cooperatives, 1938-2000.”

Presentation to the annual meeting of the NCR-194, USDA/RBS/Cooperative Services.

Mimeo, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Schuyler, George S. 1932. “The Young Negro Co-operative League.” The Crisis 41:1 (January):

456, 472.

Schuyler, George S. 1930. “Views and Reviews.” The Pittsburgh Courier 21:46 (November 15):

9 Section I.

Shipp, Sigmund C. 2000. “Worker-Owned Firms in Inner-City Neighborhoods: An Empirical

Study.” Review of International Cooperation 92-93:4/99-1/00 (March): 42-46.

Shipp, Sigmund C. 1996. “The Road Not Taken: Alternative Strategies for Black

Economic Development in the United States.” Journal of Economic Issues 30: 1

(March): 79-95.

Sims, R. P. 1925. “Co-operation at Bluefield.” The Crisis 31: 2 (December): 92-93.

Six Nations Politechnic. 2002. “Co-Operative Entrepreneurship Curriculum.” Ontario, Canada:

Six Nations Politechnic.

Stewart, James B. 1984. "Building A Cooperative Economy: Lessons from the Black

Community Experience." Review of Social Economy XLII: 3 (December): 360-368.

“A Tribute to the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund.” 2000. Journal of

Cooperative Development 2: 2 (Spring).

18

United Nations Development Program. 1994. Human Development Report. New York: The

United Nations.

Weiss, Chris, and Christina Clamp. “Women’s Cooperatives: Part of the Answer to Poverty?” In

Len Krimerman, Frank Lindenfeld, Carol Korty, and Julian Benello, eds. From the

Ground Up: Essays on Grassroots & Workplace Democracy by C. George Benello.

Boston: South End Press, 1992, 229-232.

Williams, Chancellor. 1961. The Rebirth of African Civilization. Chicago: Third World Press

edition (1993); Chapter IX, “The Economic Basis of African Life,” pp. 151-181.

Williamson, Thad, David Imbroscio, and Gar Alperovitz. 2002. Making a Place for Community:

Local Democracy in a Global Era. New York: Routledge.

Woods, Clyde. 1998. Development Arrested: The Blues and Plantation Power in the Mississippi

Delta. London: Verso Press.

Notes:

1. See Clyde Woods, 1998, for example, who acknowledges that Black communities in the Delta

Region have continuously advocated cooperative alternatives, and been continuously obstructed

by the “white plantation bloc.” Bruce Reynolds, 2001, documents many of these efforts. Also see

Hope, 1940 (summary on page 52).

2. Kwanzaa is an African American holiday created by Karenga.

3. See in particular Du Bois, 1933 and 1975; Joseph DeMarco, 1974 and 1983; Haynes, 1999;

Haynes and Nembhard, 1999; and Nembhard, forthcoming.

4. For details on African American farmer cooperatives and their history, see Reynolds, 2001.

Also see Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund, 2002.

5. See Aizcorbe, et. al., 2003; percent calculation by author.

6. Even though Du Bois only mentioned consumer cooperation in this speech, later in his life he

advocated for producer- and worker- owned as well as consumer-owned African American

cooperatives, and all types of co-op businesses to support a group economy. He also later

stopped using just the word men and added women when mentioning humankind.

7. Crump (330) actually names members of the board. The President is Mrs. Thurgood Marshall

(presumably the wife of the man who later heads the Brown v. Board of Education winning team

and becomes a Supreme Court Justice, although Crump does not identify her husband further).

8. Some were put off their farms on their return from hearing Dr. Martin Luther King speak in a

nearby town. See FSC/LAF, 1992: 39.

19

9. Information has come from the Freedom Quilting Bee website,

www.ruraldevelopment.org/FQB.html; and the FSC/LAF, 1992: 39 and 45. Also see McCulloch,

2001, p. 79.

10. This description also appears in Nembhard, forthcoming.

11. Information about Apex comes from a plaque in the Milwaukee African American History

Museum. Viewed September 2003.

12. Glasser and Brecher, 2002, p. vii. Information in this section is based mostly on CHCA’s

website at www.paraprofessional.org/Sections/chca.htm; Shipp’s, 2000, description; Glasser and

Brecher; brochures; and also Weiss and Clamp, 1992.

13. This information is from McCulloch, 2001, p. 69; and author’s personal discussions with

Avis Ransom of R&B Unlimited, Inc., providers of management assistance to SSC.

14. This description also appears in Nembhard, forthcoming.

15. This information is summarized from Feldman and Nembhard, 2002: 40-42.

16. Ella Baker also went on to become chair of education and publicity for Harlem’s Own

Cooperative, Inc. (Cohen, 2003: 10). Harlem’s Own started out as a buying club affiliated with

the Young Negroes’ Cooperative League. It was established under the auspices of the Dunbar

Housewives’ League in 1935, mostly as a distributor of milk (Grant, 1998: 35). It grew and

remained functional into the 1940s. Ella Baker remained connected with it until 1941 when her

job with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) required

her to travel a great deal.

17. Also see their website: www.federationsoutherncoop.com; and “A Tribute to the FSC/LAF,”

2000.

18. This description also appears in Nembhard, forthcoming.

Board of Directors Federation of Southern Cooperative Land Assistance Fund

Board of Directors


Federation of Southern Cooperative/

Land Assistance Fund



Woodrow Keown • President

ARKANSAS

Edward Cline • Vice President

LOUISIANA

Shirley Williams-Blakely • Secretary

MISSISSIPPI

Helen Fields • Treasurer

SOUTH CAROLINA

Daniel Bustamante

TEXAS

Carrie Fulghum

ALABAMA

Satina James

GEORGIA

Pearl Long-Gaston

FLORIDA

Mattie Mack

KENTUCKY

G.L. Twitty

AT LARGE

Has Civil Rights NAACP MLK Heritage turned into a goverment backdoor land grab USDA President Obama Appointments Radicals Cheats Dishonest Brokers Throughout American The ACORN plan in the deep south

Land ownership is a vital asset to all communities. Within the last century, African-American land ownership has rapidly declined. Comparing the U.S. Agriculture Census data on African-American farmland ownership for 1910 and 1997, it shows a drastic decline from its peak of 15 million acres in 1910 to 2.4 million acres in 1997. A recent study estimated that in the early 20th century, rural landownership among African-American farmers and non-farmers was between 16 and 19 million acres (Gilbert, J., 2002). The 1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS), which assessed private rural landownership across race and use (i.e. farming, forestry, etc.), found that there are currently 68,000 African-American rural landowners and they own a total of approximately 7.7 million acres of land, less than 1% of all privately owned rural land in the United States. (AELOS, 1999). Sixty percent (60%) of which is owned by non-farmers. (AELOS, 1999). However, this acreage is valued at $14 billion. (AELOS, 1999). With rural landownership clearly being a significant economic resource base in the African-American community controls, why do African-Americans continue to lose their land?




COMMON LEGAL CONTRIBUTORS TO LAND LOSS



The Federation has identified 7 common causes of African-American land loss:



1. Heir Property Ownership.



When a person dies without a will, or other type of estate plan, state law controls who can rightfully inherit and how much they can inherit. Land that is passed down to heirs according to state law is commonly known as heir property. If the deceased owned land before death, the legally recognized rightful heirs will each inherit an undivided, fractional ownership interest in the land. Their interests are fractional because each co-owner has an individual, partial interest in the whole. Their interests are undivided because the heirs do not have separate deeds to their ownership interest. In fact, no heir can assume that his/her interest correlates to a specific area of the land until AFTER the land has been subdivided. The size of each heir’s fractional ownership interest depends on several factors - How many generations removed is an heir from the deceased?; and, How many heirs can rightfully take their inheritance at a specific point in time?



Heir property ownership is often the precursor to land loss. With each passing generation of heir property owners who die without a will or other estate plan, a new generation of heirs inherits ownership of the land. Typically, each successive generation is larger than the previous one. As a result, the next generation of landowners’ ownership interests are smaller, yet the number of interest holders has increased. With numerous co-owners, the following can occur, which can impede proper management of the land:



* Heirs do not live on or near the land;

* Heirs do not liver near each other;

* Heirs do not know one another;

* Heirs do not how to locate one another;

* Heirs do not have a connection to the land;



These common situations can make it difficult, if not impossible for the land to be properly managed. Lack of a land management plan and/or improper implementation of a land management plan can lead to land loss.

In some cases, the land is being managed, but this responsibility rests in the hands of one heir, or a small group of heirs, with the other heirs enjoying an unearned benefit. Those few who do invest in their family’s land, however, can face many obstacles to properly managing it. Without specific authorization by the other heirs, many land use decisions (i.e. harvesting timber, leasing, building a structure on the land, etc.) can be made ONLY by unanimous consent.



2. Lack of Estate Planning.



Estate planning is the process of arranging for the distribution and management of your estate after you die. An example of an estate plan is a will. Estate planning is important tool for many reasons. One, you are prepared for the unexpected ? incompetency and death. Two, when you have an estate plan, you can prevent the creation of heir property. And, three, if you are currently an heir property owner, you may potentially be able to prevent further fractionation of it.



Despite the advantages to having an estate plan, very few African-Americans have an estate plan. In an U.S. Senate-commissioned study conducted by the Emergency Land Fund in the early 1980s, it was found that approximately 80% of African-American rural landowners did not have an estate plan.



3. Tax Sale.



A tax sale is the public sale of property to recoup the amount of unpaid taxes on land. One of the challenges of owning heir property is that you may not know who is paying the taxes, or if the property taxes are delinquent. Therefore, keeping track of who pays the taxes, and whether they are current are important.



4. Partition Sale.



Partition sales are a common way African-American landowners have lost, and continue to lose, their land. A partition sale is a court-ordered sale of land. With a partition sale, the highest bidder becomes the owner. The proceeds from the sale are then distributed among all the co-owners of the property according to the size of their fractional interest. The proceeds, however, are not distributed to the heirs until after the cost of conducting the sale, attorney fees, and any other sale-related expenses are deducted. While a partition sale is the less cumbersome means to clear the problem of multiple ownership, there are several disadvantages to partition sales because:



It is often difficult for heir property owners to outbid land speculators and developers who may bid at the sale.

An interest holder in heir property does not need to obtain the consent of the other heirs before seeking the partition sale of the family land.

5. Voluntary Sales.



The frequency of land sales between African-Americans is low. The 1980 Emergency Land Fund study found that when African-Americans sell their land to someone outside their family, they tend to sell it to non-minorities (ELF, 1984). Of the heir property surveyed, 21% were sold to African-Americans outside the family, and 30% were sold to Whites (ELF, 1984), and 38% were sold to family members. These statistics have remained fairly constant. Currently, there is no definitive explanation for why voluntary land sales to those outside the African-American community occur, however, the Emergency Land Fund’s 1980 study cited "economic stress; need to prevent foreclosures; family pressure; and, external pressures" as some of the reasons for this occurrence (ELF, 1984).



6. Other Contributors to Land Loss.



In December 2001, the Associated Press released a series of articles entitled "Torn From the Land" which documents the history of African-American land loss in the South. These articles chronicle the violence, exploitation and injustice African-Americans in the South endured in an effort to become and remain landowners. Investigators for this series interviewed more than 1,000 people and examined public records. Their research found 107 documented land takings in 13 Southern and border states. Their findings were extraordinary. From the 107 documented cases, more than 24,000 acres of farm and timberland were taken, including smaller properties like stores and city lots. Further, over half of the documented cases were violent land takings (57), and the others involved trickery and legal exploitation. From the senseless murders of African-American landowners, to the public sale of family land, African-American land ownership has rapidly declined in the 20th century, and continues to steadily decline in the 21st century.



7. Inaccessibility to Legal Counsel.



The need for attorneys to assist heir property owners, particularly those who wish to maintain ownership, is critical to curbing the crisis of African-American land loss in the United States. There are organizations that have existed for some time that are doing their part in meeting this need. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives has a summer legal externship program designed to expose law students to the issue of land loss. The Land Tenure Center’s Summer Legal Externship Program provides an opportunity for law students to learn about the struggle to retain land in African-American, Hispanic, and Native American communities. Other organizations, like the Land Loss Prevention Project, host law students each summer.

Shirley Sherrod and the Land Game Pushing Racism Pushing White Farmers Out Whats this all about and what you should really know about Shirley Sherrod and Her US Government New Civil Rights Era for USDA

1861 Civil War begins.




1862 Congress creates the U.S. Department of Agriculture.



1862 Congress passes the Morrill Act (or Land Grant Act) to create land grant colleges for agriculture and mechanical arts for whites.



1865 (January) Congress adopts the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to abolish slavery.



1865 (January) After meeting with freed slaves in Savannah, Georgia - in what became known as the Savannah Colloquy - General William T. Sherman responded to their pleas for land. In January he issued his famous Field Order 15 setting aside a huge swath of abandoned land along the Georgia and South Carolina coast for black families on forty acres plots. He also said that army mules no longer in use would be offered to Black farmers. This is likely where the "Forty Acres and a Mule" legend began. Sherman never stated whether this was to be a permanent or temporary land acquisition.



1865 (March) Congress establishes the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands (Freedmen’s Bureau) providing for the allocation of “unoccupied land” to freedmen (not to exceed 40 acres) - rather than 40 acres as requested, Congress allowed the Freedmen’s Bureau to sell only 5 to 10 acre tracts of land to freed slaves.



1865 (April 9) Civil War ends.



1865 (April 14 ) Republican President Abraham Lincoln assassinated and succeeded by Vice President Andrew Johnson (former U.S. Senator from Tennessee).



1865 (May) President Johnson announces his Reconstruction Plan. The plan calls for the Southern States to abolish slavery but does not offer a role for Blacks in Reconstruction. The southern states are to determine the role of Blacks themselves.



1865 (June) Some 40,000 freed slaves were settled on what was referred to as "Sherman's Land" on some 400,000 acres of land in Georgia and South Carolina. Much of this land was for rice cultivation. The Freedmen created their own government, denied white access to the area and cultivated their land.



1865 (Summer) President Johnson reverses Sherman's Field Order 15 by ordering that virtually all plantation lands given to freed slaves be returned to the original plantation owners.



1865 (October) A reluctant General O. Howard, Chair of the Freedmen's Bureau assigned the task to tell freed slaves in Georgia and South Carolina that they must return the land they had settled on to the original owners. Some 2,000 Blacks came to the local church on Edisto Island to hear his comments. Howard said the freed slaves need to "lay aside their bitter feelings. and to become reconciled to their old masters." They responded "No, never!" "Can't do it!" "Why, General Howard, do you take away our lands?" Petitions by Blacks were drafted to protest betrayal. The first stated: " General, we want Homesteads, we were promised Homesteads by the government. If it does not carry out the promises its agents made to us...we are left in a more unpleasant condition than our former....You will see this is not the condition of really free men." (Eric Foner & Joshua Brown Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction)



1866 Congress passes the first Civil Rights Act over a presidential veto - Johnson opposed federal protection of the rights of Blacks.



1866 Congress adopts the 14th amendment giving citizenship to Blacks.



1866 The U.S. homegrown terrorist organization known as the Ku Klux Klan is created in Tennessee by Nathan B. Forrest to disrupt the progress of changing the framework of the south away from a slaveocracy, and to engrain white supremacy into southern life. It spreads into "nearly every southern state, launching a 'reign of terror' against Republican leaders both black and white." (Foner & Brown)



1867 Congress passes a series of Reconstruction Acts abolishing Southern State governments under Johnson’s plan. Election boards in each state required to register all adult Black males and all qualified adult white males. Johnson vetoes these acts and Congress easily overrides the veto.



1868 Congress attempts to impeach President Johnson which is defeated by one vote.



1869 Congress adopts the 15th Amendment making it illegal to deny males the right to vote because of their race.



1877 The Compromise of 1877 ending reconstruction: The 1876 presidential election between the Democratic candidate Samual Tildon and the Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes is in dispute. The tallies in Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina are questioned. Congress appoints an election commission composed of 5 representatives, 5 senators and 5 Supreme Court justices. Hayes wins but a compromise is agreed upon behind the scenes. The Hayes will be recognized by the South if the federal government agrees to no longer intervene in southern affairs and consequently remove the Federal troops from the South. The Compromise of 1877 was the death knell of reconstruction and laid open the tragic decline into the devastating Jim Crow period in U.S. history.



1877 Reconstruction ends with Democratic control of the South and laws are passed throughout the south denying Blacks the right to vote.



1890 Congress passes the second Morrill Act to create land grant colleges for Blacks.



1890’s The “Colored Farmers National Club and Cooperative Union of the United States” is created in Arkansas.



1896 U.S. Supreme Court passes Plessy v. Ferguson legalizing separate but equal facilities for whites and Blacks which supports the “Jim Crow” laws passed in the South denying Blacks their rights.



1910 peak of land ownership for blacks. Collectively blacks own 15 million acres of land of which 218,000 black farmers are full or part owners. A steady decline of landownership begins after 1910.



1946 Congress creates the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) to offer credit designed to improve the income of the small farm owner often known as the “lender of last resort”.



1964 The Civil Right Bill is passed to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations... (US Gov't source)



1965 The Voting Rights Act is passed - By 1965 concerted efforts to break the grip of state disfranchisement had been under way for some time, but had achieved only modest success overall and in some areas had proved almost entirely ineffectual. The murder of voting-rights activists in Philadelphia, Mississippi, gained national attention, along with numerous other acts of violence and terrorism. Finally, the unprovoked attack on March 7, 1965, by state troopers on peaceful marchers crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, en route to the state capitol in Montgomery, persuaded the President and Congress to overcome Southern legislators' resistance to effective voting rights legislation. President Johnson issued a call for a strong voting rights law and hearings began soon thereafter on the bill that would become the Voting Rights Act. (US Gov't source)



1967 Federation of Southern Cooperatives founded to assist in the economic development of black farmers and the rural poor.



1969 James Forman releases "black manifesto' In Detroit calling for $200 million for a southern land bank.



1973 "Only Six Million Acres" published by Black Economic Research Center under leadership of Bob Browne. Browne wan others were concerned at the pace of land being lost by the Black community.



1973 Emergency Land Fund (ELF) formally organized to address the issue of black land loss. Bob Browne was the founder.



1981 With a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture, the Emergency Land Fund conducts its seminal research on heir property in the Black community in the rural south. The study is known as "The Impact of Heir Property on Black Rural Land Tenure in the Southeastern Region of the United States." It was found that one of the primary reasons Blacks loose land is because of heir property - land being owned by the family - which can more easily be absconded by developers or the government.



1982 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reports one of the primary reasons blacks lose land is because of discrimination from the USDA and that the FmHA mantra of being the "lending institution of last resort" did not apply to Black farmers.



1985 ELF merges with the Federation to become the Federation Of Southern Cooperatives /Land Assistance Fund.



1990 Federation/LAF successfully leads efforts to pass the first "Minority Farmers Rights Bill" (section 2501 ) to provide technical assistance to black farmers.



1990 The first law suit filed against the federal government on behalf of all black farmers by the Farmers Legal Action Group with the assistance of the Federation/LAF.



1992 the US Census Of Agriculture reports there are 18,000 black farmers left owning 2.3 million acres.



1992 the Federation/LAF leads the first black farmer "Caravan to Washington" to address the plight of black and other minority farmers.



1997 USDA holds listening forums to hear from minority farmers.



1997 USDA’s Civil Rights Action Team develops 92 recommendations to end discrimination within USDA.



1997 second law suit on behalf of black farmers' filed against the federal government.



1998 Coordinating Council of Black Farm Groups created.



1998 (October 9) U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman designates Pigford V. Glickman as a “class”.



1999 (January 5) Consent decree arranged between attorneys for farmers and USDA attorneys - attorneys agree to settlement in class action suit filed by farmers. Attorney J.L. Chestnut in Alabama was the only black attorney serving as class counsel.



1999 (March 2) U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman holds fairness hearing on Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court.



2004 (August 15) Bob Browne dies - founder of ELF.



2008 (September 30) Attorney J.L Chestnut dies - class counsel in the Pigford v Glickman class action lawsuit.



2008 Congress passes the Farm Bill which includes provisions for "late" filers in the Pigford lawsuit to proceed with the claims process - it is known as "Pigford Two"



2009 President Barrack OBama's Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack issues a 14 point statement on civil rights initiatives at USDA entitled "A New Civil Rights Era for USDA".