This is an act proposed by the 3 D senators listed in the title, that proposes to purchase land, and give it to black farmers or black prospective farmers. (the govt will train 'em to be farmers) It has some pretty generous provisions within the bill.
The only 'good' thing I saw in the first few sections was that the land would be devoted solely to agriculture "in perpetuity".
(I did not read the whole thing) It will be expensive to the taxpayer tho. Administration cost of the program oversight alone would be $30 million over the next 10 years, and an additional $8 billion to acquire the land. "(f) (program administration) FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2030 to carry out this (administration) section." (g) (land acquisition and grants)FUNDING.—There is authorized to be appropriated, and there is appropriated, out of amounts in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $8,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2021 through 2030 to carry out this section. In addition, there is a section to make interest free loans for farm/ranch operation, and the govt can (and probably will) defer loan payments for the first 24 months of the loan period. (2) SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS AND RANCHERS.—During the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, any socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher shall be eligible for a direct operating loan under subtitle B of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 21 U.S.C. 1941 et seq.), notwithstanding any borrower eligibility requirements under subparagraph (B) or (D) of section 311(a)(1) of that Act (7 U.S.C. 24 1941(a)(1)) for such a loan. (3) INTEREST AND DEFERMENT.—In the case of an operating loan under paragraph (1) or (2)— 3 (A) the interest rate shall be zero percent 4 for the first 7 years of the term of the loan; and (B) the Secretary of Agriculture shall defer 6 payments for the first 24 months.
(b) SINGLE FAMILY HOME MORTGAGES.—Beginning on the date of conveyance of a land grant under section 9 203(a)(2), the eligible Black individual that receives the land grant shall be eligible for a direct loan under section 502 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1472), notwithstanding any borrower eligibility requirements for such a loan, for the construction or improvement of a single family home on the conveyed land.
https://www.booker.senate.g...of%202020%20Bill.pdf (I suspect, that federal lawsuits will be filed sooner or later questioning the discriminatory/constitutional aspects of this act, in that Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Italians, and Asians are not included)
Is skin color the only qualification? What happens when a person that is selected fails? I see this blowing up, farming is hard work. You can't teach someone the fortitude work the land, they either have it or they don't. That is why I learned how to weld and stayed out of the agriculture classes.
Edit: Sounds more like a money laundering program.
[This message has been edited by Jake_Dragon (edited 02-25-2021).]
I know where the black farmers and black wannabe farmers can get land. Bill Gates (and his Bill & Belinda Foundation/Cascade ) owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the US, making him the largest private-farmland owner, an analysis by The Land Report found.
Is skin color the only qualification? What happens when a person that is selected fails? I see this blowing up, farming is hard work. You can't teach someone the fortitude work the land, they either have it or they don't. That is why I learned how to weld and stayed out of the algaculture classes.
Edit: Sounds more like a money laundering program.
Your school taught people how to raise algae? Why?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 02-25-2021).]
IIRC from a college course, about 80% of all black Americans have some European or white ancestry or heritage in their back ground and about 20% of whites have some black ancestry or heritage in their back ground. I wonder if one will have to prove their blackness?
I know where the black farmers and black wannabe farmers can get land. Bill Gates (and his Bill & Belinda Foundation/Cascade ) owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the US, making him the largest private-farmland owner, an analysis by The Land Report found.
Wasn't aware Bill was selling any acreage.......... But, I am interested to know what's on the one acre in New Mexico.... I question whether or not it's "Farm Ground"........
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-25-2021).]
This is an act proposed by the 3 D senators listed in the title, that proposes to purchase land, and give it to black farmers or black prospective farmers. (the govt will train 'em to be farmers) It has some pretty generous provisions within the bill.
It seems as though these Demorat Dimwits are in a weird contest to see who can propose the most unconstitutional idea possible.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 02-25-2021).]
A wise person once taught me that we still have a one drop norm, although a little different, now. It comes down to which box you check on forms, because there are clear and powerful benefits to claiming non-White status. If you can pass for partial non-White, you have a golden ticket in corporations, college and gov work.
Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren did a similar con. But it's almost always the Obama situation con.
To address the history of discrimination against Black farmers and ranchers, to require reforms within the Department of Agriculture to prevent future discrimination, and for other purposes
.
This is intended to prevent future discrimination.......... Ya gotta wonder about that.....
I think there is likely more to be said in favor of A Homestead Act for the 21st Century.
quote
The goal of the 21st century Homestead Act is to counteract the longstanding legacy of racially discriminatory housing policies by revitalizing distressed communities through public investment. The basic structure of the program is a wholesale transfer of land to residents who meet certain criteria. Accompanied by a holistic plan at the city level to revitalize the community through public investments in infrastructure and jobs, this proposal would benefit people who live in select small and medium-sized cities that are experiencing high vacancies.
I created a thread about it (quite) some time ago.
This Black Farmers and Ranchers bill that Democratic Senators Booker, Warren and Gillibrand are imprimaturing has the world "black" all over it, like sprinkles on an ice cream.
The word "black" does not appear in A Homestead Act for the 21st Century except in the list of references that are an appendix to the Act itself, although it's not an actual bill that's been drafted, but a description of the proposed legislation and federally administered program.
So it's not explicitly putting blacks or Afro-Americans or POCB (People of Color, Black) at the head of the line, but it would certainly work that way in practice, although it would share the "free stuff" with other POCs such as Latinx and Hispanics, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Puerto Ricans; etc. And of particular interest, Whites. It would not exclude Whites and in practice, I think it would definitely advantage some Whites who would qualify for the program.
Here's the text of the Overview section:
quote
The 21st Century Homestead Program uses property grants to build wealth in communities that have been excluded from past and present public investment. It would also be a means of counteracting the great divergence in American cities, the lack of affordable quality housing, and the problem of hyper-vacancy. In order to spur revitalization, an initial investment of government capital will be used to buy, transfer, and restore a large cluster of abandoned properties in a city. Like the New Deal era credit programs, such as the Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) mortgage programs, the Federal Housing Act (FHA) or the Export-Import Bank of the US, the public investment will be a revolving credit fund that will become self-sustaining on the secondary markets after an initial public investment. The aim of this program is to jumpstart a housing revival by financing the improvement of public infrastructure and creating the conditions for continued market investments and growth.
The aim of this program is to jumpstart a housing revival by financing the improvement of public infrastructure and creating the conditions for continued market investments and growth.
The program will be federally funded and administered locally by a designated homestead office for the purpose of community revitalization. A special purpose public trust will purchase a critical mass of abandoned properties in a target city. The homes will be given through an absolute grant to qualified residents with a condition, enforced through a forgivable lien, to hold and improve the property for 10 years. A homestead grant for property improvements will accompany the property grant. In the spirit of the original Homestead acts and the New Deal mortgage programs, this program will require a large initial grant and investment from the federal government that will yield returns for the federal government, communities, and individuals. Cities will compete for these grants based on the feasibility of their revitalization plan, which will include investments for employment, infrastructure, and public resources.
It comes with the imprimatur (anyone see a pattern here?) of Mehrsa Baradaran, who is listed at the top as Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives & Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law at the University of Georgia School of Law, She's authored books on black housing, finances and wealth inequality and closely related topics.
So I'm in between things (real things) and I see something on TV and it brings this somewhat recent (and somewhat ancient) Pennock's forum topic to mind. I didn't want to use what I saw on TV. It isn't online yet. And even if it does go up online, I think these reports from The Hill are more on point. Three reports, in reverse chronological order.
"Farmers sue federal government for allegedly denying them loan forgiveness because they're white" Olafimihan "call me Olaf" Oshin for The Hilll; April 29, 2021. https://thehill.com/regulat...ly-denying-them-loan
A legal group started by former Trump aide Stephen Miller filed a class-action lawsuit on Monday on behalf of Texas’s agricultural commissioner and others arguing that the Biden administration’s funds reserved for “socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers” discriminate against white people.
The complaint from America First Legal (AFL) specifically takes issue with a proposal enacted by Congress as part of President Biden’s American Rescue Plan. The suit argues that through the program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is “actively and invidiously discriminating against American citizens solely based upon their race.”
A pair of bills were put forth by Democratic senators this week aiming to help Black farmers survive the coronavirus pandemic — and reconcile a long history of mistreatment and discrimination.
Democratic Sens. Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) announced the Emergency Relief for Farmers of Color Act on Monday, while Booker, Warnock and a gaggle of other senators introduced the Justice for Black Farmers Act, which had initially been pitched in November during the previous session of Congress.
This overlaps (in part) with the Original Post.
The human Internet page link strikes again.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-02-2021).]
One somewhat prominent pundit suggested publicly that if one can choose their gender then it stands to reason that one can choose anything including race or ethnicity. Imagine if everyone applies for whatever benefits the government is offering. I mean everyone. And then the lawsuits will begin when you are told you aren’t black enough.
A wise person once taught me that we still have a one drop norm, although a little different, now. It comes down to which box you check on forms, because there are clear and powerful benefits to claiming non-White status. If you can pass for partial non-White, you have a golden ticket in corporations, college and gov work.
Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren did a similar con. But it's almost always the Obama situation con.
They still do it today, as done yesterday; Barack, Sally Heming, Kathryn Johnson, Shawn King. Not Black.
Elizabeth Warren took a little back from the Red man and showed us how.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 05-03-2021).]
The shameful story of how 1 million black families have been ripped from their farms
Focuses on Mississippi.
quote
This is not a story about TIAA—at least not primarily. The company’s newfound dominance in the region is merely the topsoil covering a history of loss and legally sanctioned theft in which TIAA played no part. But TIAA’s position is instrumental in understanding both how the crimes of Jim Crow have been laundered by time and how the legacy of ill-gotten gains has become a structural part of American life. The land was wrested first from Native Americans, by force. It was then cleared, watered, and made productive for intensive agriculture by the labor of enslaved Africans, who after Emancipation would come to own a portion of it. Later, through a variety of means—sometimes legal, often coercive, in many cases legal and coercive, occasionally violent—farmland owned by black people came into the hands of white people. It was aggregated into larger holdings, then aggregated again, eventually attracting the interest of Wall Street.
Owners of small farms everywhere, black and white alike, have long been buffeted by larger economic forces. But what happened to black landowners in the South, and particularly in the Delta, is distinct, and was propelled not only by economic change but also by white racism and local white power. A war waged by deed of title has dispossessed 98 percent of black agricultural landowners in America. They have lost 12 million acres over the past century. But even that statement falsely consigns the losses to long-ago history. In fact, the losses mostly occurred within living memory, from the 1950s onward. Today, except for a handful of farmers like the Scotts who have been able to keep or get back some land, black people in this most productive corner of the Deep South own almost nothing of the bounty under their feet.
Many people now see the propaganda written into theses pieces.
No known people are "native" American. "Indian American" is more accurate, since all DNA traces to other parts of the globe.
Indian Americans displaced other groups in much of the continent. Human slavery was practiced. Human sacrifice was present. Human consumption was present.
When Whites migrated and displaced Indian Americans they brought the advantages of science, medicine, architecture, etc.. Indian Americans held Black slaves after Whites came. Some still reject tribe affiliation to African Americans. Others only recently accepted their African-American slaves as a tribal entity, as the Cherokee did in 2015. The Cherokee displaced others when they migrated to the South.
Pieces have illustrated that Africans brought to the Americas escaped some of the perils of famine, war, etc., that was left in Africa. Some African-Americans attained top 1% wealth status in America even in the 1800s. One that comes to mind did it through African slavery, owning, breeding and trading African-Americans. He selected a White woman for his wife.
400,000 Africans have become 40 million in the USA.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 05-28-2021).]
Does that contradict the article that I just posted, from The Atlantic? Or undermine the article's significance or "truthiness"..?
It's a long article. I have not read hardly any of it, beyond what I duplicated. I don't know whether the article is prescriptive in any way, suggesting that "this" or "that" should be done about it, or if it simply chronicles the history.
I thought, more than anything else, that it might be something that maryjane would like to look at. If not the article itself, the very small part of it that I duplicated here.
Seeing that he is the one that created this forum topic.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-28-2021).]
Owners of small farms everywhere, black and white alike, have long been buffeted by larger economic forces. But what happened to black landowners in the South, and particularly in the Delta, is distinct, and was propelled not only by economic change but also by white racism and local white power. A war waged by deed of title has dispossessed 98 percent of black agricultural landowners in America. They have lost 12 million acres over the past century. But even that statement falsely consigns the losses to long-ago history. In fact, the losses mostly occurred within living memory, from the 1950s onward. Today, except for a handful of farmers like the Scotts who have been able to keep or get back some land, black people in this most productive corner of the Deep South own almost nothing of the bounty under their feet.
Does that contradict the article that I just posted, from The Atlantic? Or undermine the article's significance or "truthiness"..?
It's a long article. I have not read hardly any of it, beyond what I duplicated. I don't know whether the article is prescriptive in any way, suggesting that "this" or "that" should be done about it, or if it simply chronicles the history.
I thought, more than anything else, that it might be something that maryjane would like to look at. If not the article itself, the very small part of it that I duplicated here.
Seeing that he is the one that created this forum topic.
If only maryjane was the target invited, you could've sent a private message.
I'll explain it again just for you, because it's already in my previous statement.
The propaganda and dishonest narratives written into pieces like that are an attempt to indoctrinate society that Indian Americans aren't immigrants, didn't displace others, didn't enslave others, sacrifice or consume others, that Blacks aren't discriminated in the modern era by Indian-American tribes, that African-Americans didn't enslave others, didn't benefit from their environment and White culture.
My post is dismantling the disingenuous subtext and exposing the propaganda. It's written like most narratives, with a leftist bent aimed at blaming what group?
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 05-28-2021).]
Originally posted by sourmash: I don't suppose your.desures have any worth to anyone else, since the rest of us have our wishes.
The "rest of us" is a small group indeed, if the metric is the level or enumeration of active messaging in threads that are (or should be) checkboxed as "Politics."
The "rest of us" is a small group indeed, if the metric is the level or enumeration of active messaging in threads that are (or should be) checkboxed as "Politics."
Which of course still makes the group of you laughably miniscule by that, or any, metric.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 05-29-2021).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: I thought, more than anything else, that it might be something that maryjane would like to look at. If not the article itself, the very small part of it that I duplicated here.
Seeing that he is the one that created this forum topic.
I haven't had time to be on line very much lately, having been involved again with county political/agriculture affairs. The reasons for fewer black farmers in the South is not as clear cut as some would like it to appear. There were several factors involved in the Mississippi delta exodus of individual farmers (what is today sometimes called small family farm owners). Agriculture on small farms has always been a small profit margin endeavor, and for the most part, continues today. In post civil war times thru the 1950s, it was even worse. Mostly, subsistence farming no matter what color your skin happened to be. Grow what you eat, sell just enough to make a land payment and/or buy clothing and other non-farm goods. There was just no economic upward mobility in that lifestyle.
Post civil war movement to the North where jobs were still more abundant. Freed men in the deep south didn't have the $$ to buy southern land so they worked for others, or they moved. Industrialization in the bigger cities (especially in the rust belt) was more attractive than eeking out a living in the post civil war South. By the late 1800s/early 1900s, the Great Migration had begun. Labor shortages in Northern factories during WW1. And only a few years later, the approximate 25,000 square mile Mississippi River flood of 1929 was a death knell for many, especially small farm owners in the delta of Miss, La and Arkansas. 100s of thousands of small independent farmers just packed it in, abandoned their farms and moved North.
There were several factors involved in the Mississippi delta exodus of individual farmers (what is today sometimes called small family farm owners). Agriculture on small farms has always been a small profit margin endeavor, and for the most part, continues today. In post civil war times thru the 1950s, it was even worse. Mostly, subsistence farming no matter what color your skin happened to be. Grow what you eat, sell just enough to make a land payment and/or buy clothing and other non-farm goods. There was just no economic upward mobility in that lifestyle.
.
In Wisconsin my Dad farmed the farm he was born on, a holstien dairy, it was small. The milk was sold. He worked hard all day, as in really all-day, and wasnt inefficient, we kids and even mom helped. The day he went to driving over the road trucks instead is the day he started turning a decent profit, also the day he started building a retirement of any kind, and also the day he got decent health insurance. He'd probly still be struggling at it, but none of us kids saw a future in it, and when we graduated high school started moving out his future help did too.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 06-01-2021).]
It seems as though these Demorat Dimwits are in a weird contest to see who can propose the most unconstitutional idea possible.
When and how are they going to get called on it i wonder?
Currently they seem to have concinced "private" businesses to do this dirty work for them, with their diversity and equity racist programs. Which also go against the rules of descriminating based on race.