A Man, Mission, Family, and Farm

He is an intense man, a person of deep passion, resolve, and commitment. He moves with energy. He talks fast, thinks fast, multi-tasks with the best of them. He wears a lot of hats, and he leads a multitude of people and institutions. Environmental issues, elderly health care, and, of course, the survival of the Black farmer crowd his plate.

He sits across the desk from me. If his desk is an indication of how complicated his life is, then it pretty much speaks for itself. He leads an organization of Black farmers, has spoken before various subcommittee hearings, and has written more letters and spoken to more politicians and people of influence than anyone can count. If you want to see his face, he's the middle of the three men in the picture at the top of this blog. If you want to see his family, go back to the wreath-laying ceremony blog.

Today, though, when he lays aside all other hats, he's concerned about his family farm. Naturally so. Though his heart is with the larger movement of the survival of the Black farm and family, he is fighting to hold on to the land he was raised on, land which brought in the money that educated him and his siblings, so I must give him a wide space within which to speak his mind. And, speak his mind he does. He's quick witted and laughs easily, worries perpetually, and gives his very life and soul to the causes that are most important to him. So, when he challenges my naive assumptions, I listen. When he corrects my terminology, I listen. When he points out the way things are, I listen. He is the teacher; I am the student.

His family is fighting to hold on to their land. Here's their story in brief.

His parents, Florenza and Matthew Grant, moved from Virginia to Tillery, North Carolina in 1947 as part of the "New Deal Settlement Settlement" project. The Whites got the best land, and the Blacks the worst land. Still, they made it work, until, of course, natural disasters hit, "acts of God" that impacted farmers of both races. In the 1970s, then, Halifax County FmHA began efforts to seize the land.

So, in 1976, all "hell" broke loose for the Grant family. Since 1972 the Grants had been borrowing money from the USDA, but between 1972 and 1976, three natural disasters hit the county, which was declared a natural disaster area. Foreclosure efforts began in 1976 despite these disasters, and despite the fact that the family owed a modest sum of $10,000. Creative efforts that included leveraging the Grant children's credit against the amount owed were denied. Disaster relief funds available to all farmers were not offered. The FmHA District Director was ruthless, saying, according to Gary, to his father, "It does not matter who you go to see, whether it's local or in Washington, DC, or who you bring; if you don't bring the entire amount of your loan, we are going to sell you out." Why not? This was prime farmland that is found along the Roanoke River, an area that was becoming a prime development area. Still is apparently to this day.

Like many other Black farmers and families, the USDA did not respond to their complaints during those earliest of days as the Office of Civil Rights was open and closed sporadically, depending upon who was in office in DC. Wisely, the Grants joined forces with the Concerned Citizens of Tillery and its Land Loss Fund along with the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association to fight in support of the Pigford V. Glickman suit which later became known as simply as "Pigford."

The Grant family, however, continued to fight their own individual battle, and in early March, 1998, a "Final Resolution Agreement" was signed which gave the Grant family $350,000 and debt write-off. Still to this day, the agreement has been ignored. Signed then. Ignored now.

Then, in October, 2000, the Grant family entered a class action suit known as Wise v. Veneman along with other African American men and women farmers from North Carolina. When Mr. and Mrs. Grant died, their children, heirs of the estate, continued to seek justice under the law. Required by the Department of Justice to withdraw from the Wise case, the Grant family refused to sign away future options under an agreement of withdrawing "without prejudice" which would mean that they would be allowed to continue in the courts if injustices continued. Unfortunately, those in the Pigford case essentially signed away this right, which means that once a decision on behalf of a Black farmer was made as to eligibility and merits of their case under Pigford, the final decision was indeed final, and they would have no redress under the agreement. Another form of enslavement in my opinion, and I've listened to numerous farmers whose cases were compelling but denied under Pigford.

In Wise v. Veneman, Mr. and Mrs. Grant alleged various acts of discrimination including failure to offer disaster relief funding available to other farmers, failure to execute a fair buy-back option available to farmers under USDA policy, being compelled to work under the onerous demands of a supervised contract, and other matters related to the operations of the county office and supervisors.

Despite a legal battle that has ensued since 1976, the battle still continues, but it apparently will end one way or another on November 20, 2007 in a federal court in Raleigh, North Carolina. A "Writ of Execution" has been served which demands that the Grant family settle all financial matters despite the fact that it was originally settled in 1981. All parties have reneged on the signed agreement from 1981. The numbers are staggering. They would be staggering for any family.

Simply put, an agreement that admitted racial discrimination was signed in 1981, but all parties have opted to renege on it. Despite intense and ongoing struggles to save their ancestral lands, the USDA is intent upon taking it away. Signatures are to mean something in this day and age, as they were to have meant something in 1981. I frankly don't get it as to why the settlement was made and signed off on and then unmade and reinitiated as if the former never existed. The signed agreement was for $350,000, much, much more than enough to pay off the original debt plus the interest that has accrued since then, a penalty which, in my opinion, adds insult to injury.

Such is the sign of the times in many sections of our country. Bottom line, the Grant family, a proud and resilient family, a people who love the land, family, and farming, need our help and support. On the pages of this blog there is a letter than can be cut and pasted and faxed or emailed to the highest office in our land. On another page, there is a slightly different version of the same letter. Check out this link for more information and another version of the letter. Write it in your own words. Adapt it to fit how you say things, but fax it to the White House as a show of support for these good people.

So, the conversation with Gary and me lasted for several hours, and over the course of several days, and since then via email and telephone, the conversations have continued. In my book, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong. The right ought to be done, and the wrong ought not to be done.

This family has been wronged. They have paid for it. There were no health problems of significance in the Grant family when these matters started. Now, Matthew and Florenza Grant are deceased, taken early from their midst, according to the survivors, due to the unrelenting and brutal stress of it all. And, a brother of Gary Grant's, a Viet Nam veteran and farmer, has also been claimed by death as well, way too early as a result of the persistent and hostile threats of foreclosure.

This family is a good family. Pillars of their small community they are.

They deserve better treatment.