By Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

September 11, 2002 marked the opening of the 32nd Annual Legislative Conference of the
Congressional Black Caucus. Black Caucus members of the House Agricultural Committee spearheaded by
Rep. Eva M. Clayton hosted an issue forum entitled, "What has changed for Black farmers?"
The panel included both the president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturists Association, Gary
Grant, and president of the National Black Farmers Association, John Boyd. In the past Mr. Grant and
Mr. Boyd differed on which tactic to use in getting justice for Black farmers. Mr. Grant felt that a
class action lawsuit would be the best way to save as many Black farmers’ land under immediate
foreclosure threats from the USDA. Mr. Boyd felt that seeking regress for wrongs done by going
through the administrative process would get the higher net settlements in cases of discrimination
by the USDA.

Mr. Boyd stated, "They have the best programs in place. There’s nothing wrong with the
programs, but there’s something wrong with the people who administer the programs across the
country." He goes on to point out that although the Black farmers won the largest civil rights
lawsuit in the history of this country, not one of the perpetrators of discrimination have been
terminated. The Black farmers have to go right back to the very ones that did them wrong in the
past.

Mr. Grant said, "The consent decree is between counsel and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, because we protested it to high heaven on the day of the Fairness Hearing. And not one
thing that we told Judge Paul Friedman on that day has not come to reality." According to Mr.
Grant, so-called educated Blacks must take responsibility for the loss of Black farm land that their
poor illiterate fore parents were able to buy up from slavery.

Mr. Boyd and Mr. Grant and their organizations were and are fighting the same enemy, but differ
on tactics. Many Black people ask why don’t our Black leaders and organizations unite and present
a united front towards the enemy. Both men and members of their organizations are well educated and
capable of analyzing the problem. The problem is a USDA conspiracy to steal Black owned farm land.
What they differ on is how to fight this beast and what can be expected from this beast.

The administrative root is long and drawn out. Mr. Grant’s family have been fighting their case
of discrimination for over 25 years and they still have not received full settlement. A class
action lawsuit could bring the quickest and broadest relief IF it had been handled properly by the
lawyers. The USDA, however, had no intentions of allowing the farmers to testify in court to a
"jury of their peers", so the consent decree was set out of court between the USDA and
class counsel under the benign eye of the Federal Court Judge Paul Friedman.

The question of which tactic is the best is not some academic discussion over a beer. The legacy
of a race is at steak. Therefore it is no wonder that discussions get hot and feelings get hurt in
this war against a master of division. As the clock ticks frustrations increase as the fear of
loosing real wealth becomes ominous

"When Black America becomes outraged and stop only blaming the "white robes" in
the South and start blaming some ‘blue suits’ and ‘black robes’ in the North, then will we
be liberated, then will we get our land back", says Mr. Grant. Black farmers took over a USDA
building in July in Tennessee and another one in Arkansas in September demanding removal of
employees practicing discrimination, a moratorium on farm foreclosures, cease and desist in taking
farm-offset money from farmers, cease and desist in taking IRS tax returns that belong to farmers
and to pay the farmers currently in the Pigford v. Veneman Class Action suit.

No action has been taken by the USDA on these demands, instead on September 14th they offered
more minority loan money availability and diversity training for employees. These offers were described
by Mr. Grant as "hogwash".

The Black farmers had also made two motions to the court in the lawsuit: one was to vacate the
Consent Decree and dismiss lead Class Counsel. Both of these motions were denied by Judge Friedman
on September 11, 2002.

Just as BFAA is having problems with going the court route, funding for Mr. Boyd’s outreach
programs sponsored by the USDA has been threatened in a Republican political move to split BFAA by
offering some of this money to a splinter group. State sponsored division of the Black movement is
alive and well.

However, on a positive note, the lead counsel for the lawsuit, Al Pires, dropped in on Eva
Clayton’s issues forum and although he was not scheduled to speak, he was invited by Rep. John
Conyers to use some of his time to speak. Mr. Pires used this opportunity to bemoan how his efforts
to help Black farmers has not been received with gratitude by the Black farmers. He also tried to
shift responsibility for the outcome of the lawsuit on Black law firms and even tried to implicate
such scholars as Dr. Ogletree in the development of the Consent Decree.

In the question and answer period Mr. Pires raised the ire of the Black lawyer on the panel, Mr.
James Myart, who accused Pires of stealing his ideas to build his law suit. Mr. Grant and Mr. Boyd
were united in their denunciation of Mr. Pires.

So "What has changed for the Black farmers?" "9/11" may go down in the
memories of Black farmers as the day that the movement for independence for Black people was born.
Black farm organizations, city activists and Black lawyers saw the "snake" in full glory
and are now setting strategies to heal their wounds, unite and inspire a sleeping giant to rise
above emotionalism, fear and complacency.

Mr. Grant asked the Congressional Black Caucus to get the congress to hold hearings on the
conspiracy of USDA, Justice Department and Class Counsel to deprive Black farmers of their land. We
add that whether the Congress sets up hearings or not, these entities will be tried in the court of
public opinion right here at www.MuhammadFarms.com. In doing so we will
begin to answer the question posed by yours truly, Dr. Muhammad, at the forum, "Why is it that
the only people who got paid in this law suit are the white monitor, the white lead counsel, the
white judge, the white arbitrators; (while) the black lawyers didn’t get paid and the black
farmers didn’t get paid?"

Peace, Doc

Back Migration of Blacks: Who will benefit?

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

According to US Census statistics from 1990 to 2000 approximately 579,000 Black people have
migrated back to the South. Who is and will benefit from this great back migration of Blacks?

In 1910 Blacks had accumulated over 16 million acres of land primarily from their own hard work
and sacrifice. However, by the year 2000 Blacks owned less than 3 million acres. Black farmers are a
dwindling breed. Twenty-five percent (25%) are over 70 years old, while only four percent (4%) are
under 35.

The KKK, Jim Crow, lynching and other terrorist tactics were used to flush Blacks out of the
country side while the NAACP was luring them to come North. The USDA assisted white farmers to buy
the land being left behind with tax payer money and helped cheat Black farmers out of their land who
were not willing to sell.

Black farmers went to court in 1999 to stop the USDA from foreclosing on another 3,000 farmers.
However, the farmers were tricked into signing a consent decree which gave $50,000 to over 13,000
people, most of whom were not farming. The system denied over 8,000 people who applied to be
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Within this 8,000 were the same 3,000 that the USDA was targeting for
foreclosure. April of 2004 saw the end of the consent decree, so now the USDA is coming after that
land without media coverage or public outcry.

Earlier in the 20^th century Blacks left their land behind to be farmed and later
developed by white people. Now as they migrate back to the South, they will probably wind up buying
back some of that same land. However, instead of the few dollars per acre that their forefathers got
for this land, they will be paying thousands of dollars for the land and much more for the houses
built on that land. Probably they will make this purchase by putting some money down and going
further in debt. They will probably agree to pay interest compounded on interest to the owners
directly or indirectly through the banks that these wealthy farmers own in the rural communities.

The white farmers used government subsidies to get filthy rich. Now as they move into retirement
they can use their equity to start development projects on that land and sell it to the new comers
to establish a fat nest egg for their retirement or capital boost for their children and
grandchildren.

To make things worse these poor Northerners will probably depend on a white real estate agent to
find that "dream home". Just around the corner from our farm in Georgia are a number of
developments that have sprung up in the last 5 years on what used to be farm land. The homes look
beautiful. However, we saw these houses hastily put up with materials of questionable quality. We
know that some of these houses are built in what once were very swampy areas that revert back to
that condition after a hard rain. Many of these fancy homes were lived in less than a year before
for sale signs began to spring up.

What buyers may not know is that developers go to great pains to put the best materials and
workmanship in those first model homes in a development. As the development grows the houses are
built faster and corners are cut on materials and workmanship.

There are other tricks that perspective buyers should be aware of. We know of at least two houses
that were damaged by the 1998 floods in Lee County. They moved these houses out of the flood plain
and set them up in one of these new fancy communities. The houses look fine, but the locals know the
deal. They have set there for over 4 years waiting on that unsuspecting Northerner to come back
South.

One of the most comical incidences of home buyers being taken can be seen along Hwy 32 traveling
between Dawson and Leesburg, Ga. In front of one of these newly built mansions is a pit sitting next
to the road which was supposed to be a pond. They dug this thing out, but it just will not fill with
water. They even put plastic in the bottom of this dry pond hoping to stop the water from seeping
out as they refilled it with well water. That didn’t work. Just recently, hurricane Frances came
directly over us and that pond dropping at least 6 inches of torrential rain. That pond is still dry
and ugly while their neighbor’s yard right across the road is under water (smile). I guess that
this property will be up for sale soon.

On Saturday, September 18, 2004 in the city of Atlanta, Ga the Black Family Land Trust (BFLT) is
introducing itself to the wider community. It is holding a conference entitled "A landed people
is a powerful people." The mission of the BFLT is to stop the loss of Black owned land and
provide opportunities for economic development to ensure the viability of both farmers and rural
communities. "If you are going to come home, at least get the lay of the land."

For information on the BFLT conference go to www.MuhammadFarms.com and hit "Black
Family Land Trust (BFLT) Conference".

Peace, Doc

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

Who will feed the world’s hungry, "Frankenfood" or "Mad Cows"? In "Frankenfoods"
corner we have Jonathan Rauch who in an October 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly magazine
entitled "Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?" raises a question about the problems and
possible solutions of feeding a growing world population. The problem is posed as too little land
and too many people with the solution being more technology. However, Marcela Valente in a September
9, 2003 article in the Final Call Newspaper entitled "Six million go hungry in land of
abundance" puts the problem of hunger not with technology or a lack of productivity but income
distribution, which is ultimately a political or economic problem which requires a political or
structural solution.

Ms. Valente quotes Patricia Aquirre of the Health Ministry’s Maternal-Infant Health division as
saying "In Argentina, the problem is not one of availability of food, but of being able to
afford it. If the distribution of wealth were more equitable, there would be enough food for
everyone." The article goes on to point out that the middle and upper classes in Argentina have
access to at least 250 different food products, while the diet of the poor includes only 22
"affordable" items.

To complicate matters the once rich nation of Argentina has been transformed into an economy
where 54.7 percent of the population has fallen into poverty. This collapse happened in a relatively
short period of time while still being a world leader in the export of beef, corn, wheat and
soybeans.

Although Argentina already produces an economic surplus Mr. Rauch’s article would give one the
impression that Argentina could produce its way out of hunger by introducing "Frankenfoods".
If only the "environmentalist" would get out of the way and allow our beneficent
scientists and agribusiness industry to bring the world into the new biotech revolution, the success
of the "Green Revolution" could be multiplied. The writer, Mr. Rauch, admits that he is
"agriculturally illiterate", however he now writes a six page article in the Atlantic
Monthly to convince the world to lower its shield of skepticism toward an agricultural industry that
Min. Farrakhan has exposed as "merchants of death".

Before Mr. Rauch gives a free hand to the "scientists" working in their laboratories he
should evaluate those countries that supposedly benefited from the "Green Revolution". To
help us with this analysis we will refer to the March 2000 article called "Lessons from the
Green Revolution" by Peter Rosset, et al., found on the www.foodfirst.org
web site. The term "Green Revolution" was coined in the 1960s to describe the adoption of
new high yielding varieties of wheat, rice and corn. However, much of the reason why these
"modern varieties" produced more than the traditional varieties was that they were more
responsive to irrigation and petrochemical fertilizers.

Rosset, et al., writes "By the 1970s, the term ‘revolution’ was well deserved, for the
new seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the most part, irrigation-had
replaced the traditional farming practices of millions of Third World farmers. The total food
available per person in the world rose by 11 percent from 1970 to 1990. However, in South America
per capita food supplies rose almost 8 percent per person, but the number of hungry people also went
up by 19 percent. Commercial farms expanded, running small farmers off of the land and into the
cities where they could not find adequate income and therefore could not afford to buy adequate
food.

After the crops were grown, most of the population in these countries was too poor to purchase
these commercially grown crops so they were exported to the developed world, especially Europe.
Therefore, the "Green Revolution" provided a source of cheap food for Europe while
addicting the Third World countries to purchased inputs provided by Europe, America and their
allies.

Now "Frankenfood" adds a new wrinkle to this game of monopoly. The new genetically
engineered "miracle" crops will be produced with patented seeds that will be illegal for
the farmers to save and store for next year’s planting. The farmers then will be completely at the
mercy of the multinational biotech firms such as Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Epicyte and Syngenta.
Imagine a world where all of the seed is controlled by one or two companies. Technically, if the
seed is patented, then its offspring belongs to the patent holder, since the fruit is also filled
with the patented genes. Therefore, if the seed company wanted to exert its "rights" to
the limit, it could tell you who you could or could not sell "their" crop to. Then if you
decided to eat "their" crop without their permission and they found traces of the patented
gene in your gut, then they could charge you with destroying their property. Frankenstein is
laughable compared to the past exploits and future plans of these new test tube slinging cowboys.

People have gotten far away from not only understanding agriculture, but understanding the
technical relationships between cause and effect beyond hitting a mouse or squeezing the trigger on
a video game. It is still the case that the most technically literate societies, such as Europe and
Japan, are deathly against "Frankenfood". However, America is still trying to use the
World Trade Organization to shove it down the throat of Europe and Japan, while she uses Africa for
her genetic refuse.

Now these same scientists and food companies that bring you "Frankenfood" introduced
"mad cow disease ‘ to the world by feeding cows to cows then to you. Cows naturally get their
protein and energy from eating vegetation and not meat, unless force-fed by the merchants of death.
Nature rebelled against this new practice of humans forcing cows to break nature’s laws by making
humans taste a portion of what they have earned, "mad cow disease".

Furthermore, it takes 10 times more land to produce the same amount of food energy derived from
beef than it does to grow beans that would provide that same energy. If America was concerned about
relieving hunger then let her give up "Mad Cow Burgers". She might even lose a few inches
around the waist as she releases the land from beneath the burden of her gluttonous desire for meat
and allows it to be used to feed a "hungry world". But it seems that she would rather
poison the land like she poisoned the cows and ultimately herself.

What ever happened to Frankenstein anyway? Remember, Frankenstein was the scientist who made the
monster, so who was the real "monster"?

"There’s a war going on that you might want to know,

You’d better find out from Monsanto." (from www.muhammadfarms.com/poems.htm)

by Dr. Ridgely A. Mu’min Muhammad

At the Redeem the Dream March on August 26, 2000 we participated in what
turned out to be a pep rally for Al Gore and the Democratic party. The speakers
including Rev. Al Sharpton castigated America for the behavior of her police in
brutalizing Black people, but did not implicate the Clinton/Gore administration’s
8 year reign in the White House as being a part of that conspiracy. The theme
was that we can not let the Republicans take the White House even though we lost
affirmative action, welfare and the majority of us got relatively poorer under
Clinton and Gore.

Here we have an example of the poor slave torn between leaving one slave
master that treats him bad to another one who treats him worse. The Democrats
promise much but deliver crumbs and the Republicans just whip that head. When
the Democrats get in office they tell Black folk that they can not deliver on
all of their campaign promises because of the "white backlash" that
would take them out of office in the next election. When the Republicans get in
office, they say that they don’t owe Black folk anything because they did not
vote for the Republicans.

The history of how Black farmers fared with these two parties can give reason
for pause before enthusiastically endorsing either "massa".

The Republicans under Lincoln emancipated the slaves. They promised the
ex-slaves 40 acres and a mule but did not come through, blaming the Democratic
southern power structure for blocking that promise.

A Populist third party movement flourished in the 1890’s which scared both
the Democrats and Republicans. The "People’s Party" was a
"cooperative crusade" that united both the farmers and factory
workers, the "plain people", against the bankers, credit merchants and
railroad barons. The Democrats waved the emotional flag of "Negro
domination" to rally the white southerners against the People’s Party.
They used the methods of bribery, intimidation, and overt violence to scare
Blacks from the poles. The KKK went on a rampage of terror and the white
"plain people" sacrificed their freedom from "big money"
domination for the "god" of racism.

In the mist of all of this after slavery up to the Great Depression Black
farmers had bought at least 15 million acres of land through their own blood,
sweat and tears. The white farmers down south were economically devastated after
the Civil War. They did not have operating capital nor free labor. They could
not operate the plantations because they did not have operating capital nor free
labor. Agriculture was still a labor intensive industry and the Black farmers
had large families which gave them a comparative advantage.

However, after the Great Depression the Democrats under President Franklin D.
Roosevelt set up the New Deal. Within this New Deal package was a set of
institutions to jump start the agricultural industry. However these New Deal
agricultural programs were administered on a local level by "county
committees". Roosevelt and everybody else knew that those white boys in the
southern states were not going to do justice by their former slaves. Therefore
these county committees in the southern states took tax payers money to step by
step run the Black farmers off the land. At the same time tax money was used by
the land grant universities to develop new labor saving technologies that
required capital to purchase. The white farmers were given access to the capital
and the Black farmers were left out.

In the late 1970’s the USDA under President Carter set aside special low
interest loan money targeted towards Black farmers but did not touch the
delivery system. Therefore that money wound up right back in the hands of white
farmers down south. Black farmers and Black people in general voted for Jimmy
Carter again in 1980 but Reagan won. Now the Republicans retaliated against
Black people and Black farmers in particular.

Congressmen Edolphus Towns of New York presented a report on May 3, 1983 from
the Civil Rights Commission on "The Plight of the Black Farmer" . He
read this report to get support to strengthen the Civil Rights Division of the
USDA which the Reagan administration was threatening to remove. Let me present
excerpts from the Congressional Record:

"In a memorandum brought to the public’s attention during a
Presidential news conference in February of 1983, it was learned that USDA
Office of Minority Affairs Director Rodriguez was suggesting that all USDA
regulations be "purged" of any reverse-discrimination aspects…"
Rodriguez went on to assert that the Administration has not been supported
politically by the groups which benefit from civil rights policies and that
"non-ethnic" groups which have not received special benefits are
making it clear in a number of ways they are tired of ethnic favoritism."
(CR May 3, 1983)

Al Gore, Democrat, was there that day representing Tennessee. Dan Glickman,
Democrat, was there that day representing Kansas and was a member of the House
Agricultural Committee. Neither said a mumbling word to support Congressman
Towns’ attempt to rally support for Black farmers and the Civil Rights
Division of the USDA was not strengthened but terminated.

When President Clinton was elected in 1992 he made Mike Espy his Secretary of
Agriculture, the first Black ever to hold that post. Secretary Espy opened up
the can of worms in terms of USDA discrimination against Black farmers. He was
immediately scandalized and removed from that post and an old friend of now
Vice-president Al Gore, Dan Glickman was brought in to put the lid back on that
can.

The Black farmers under the leadership of Gary Grant established the Black
Farmers and Agriculturalists Association to fight against continued USDA
discrimination and demand "reparations" for the Black farmers. A class
action lawsuit, Pigford vs Glickman, was filed. Six lead plaintiffs were
awaiting word from class council Al Pires on the status of their test cases. Al
Pires had not consulted with them for three months before November 3, 1998. On
that day "Black Tuesday" Black people came out to vote in record
numbers and all of a sudden a "deal" was struck between Al Pires, the
lawyer for the Black farmers, and the Justice Department lawyers defending the
USDA. The farmers sent Al Pires to get the land back and instead he brought back
"toilet paper", $50,000, with loop-holes for the USDA.

The Black farmers protested against the Consent Decree. The media was no
longer interested in telling their side of the story. After suffering 40 percent
denial rates the Black farmers in a desperate attempt to get their voices heard,
stormed the USDA building on March 6, 1999. None of the major media was there,
though they were invited. From September of 1999 through July of 2000 the Black
farmers have rallied in numbers in Washington, DC each and every month.

The Republicans through a bill put forward by Congressmen Dickey from
Arkansas and Watts from Oklahoma tried to force the USDA to expedite the process
of relief to the Black farmers. However, the Congressional Black Caucus voted
against the resolution claiming that it was just a publicity stunt. The bill
failed and the Congressional Black Caucus was angry with the Black farmers for
voicing their disapproval of how the CBC voted.

We have fared no better on the foreign seen. I was at Mt. Olivet Baptist
Church in Harlem to see Zimbabwean President Mugabe on Thursday, Sept. 7. He
said that an agreement was reached in 1979 after 3 months of negotiations that
the British government would pay the white farmers for their land and give it
back to the Zimbabweans. Prime Minister Thatcher made the agreement backed up by
Pres. Jimmy Carter. Britain reneged, Carter loss to Reagan, America reneged, and
nobody gave Zimbabwe any money.

This article just talks about how Black people have fared in this "two
party" system as it relates to economics and land. Maybe we have fared
better in other arenas. But as Homey the Clown said, "I don’t think
so."

Solution: 1.Join Minister Louis Farrakhan on the Washington Mall on October
16, 2000 for the Million Family March and let’s flex a "Third Political
Force". 2. Read the "National Agenda" on
http://www.millionfamilymarch.com . 3. Fight for "Proportional
Representation" in local, state and national legislative bodies.

Peace

By Brother Ridgely X

At our local mosque, No. 92 in Greensboro, NC we did a small survey for our farm marketing buying
club. We wanted to get an idea of our spending habits, specifically groceries. We received 14
surveys back. One of the first things that stood out to me is the frequency of trips to the grocery
store. Some of the believers have large families (4 or more), and we realize that they would have a
need to make more visits and spend considerably more per month on groceries. The amount of money we
spend on dining out is actually a little lower than I expected, I think another survey this time
anonymous would provide better data.

The questions asked were: How much does your family spend per month on groceries? How many times
do you visit the grocery store per month? How much does your family spend per month on dining out?
What foods would you like to receive in the food basket? Are you interested in joining the buying
club? Does your family have access to land (more than 5 acres)?

Large families tend to spend upwards of $350 per month in the stores and another $150 or so
eating out. I think a good selling point and goal for the buying club would be to decrease the total
monthly food bill for those families by at least $50.00-$75.00. Of course we know the added benefits
of pooling our resources and efforts as well as the health benefits of eating more health conscious
foods, so if we could reach that goal, there would really be no excuse not to join and the members
could actually see the benefit in dollars and cents.

In this particular survey we found that everybody likes green peppers! They also liked onions,
tomatoes, and fruit. I wonder if and where we could get navy beans -when not available from the farm
in Georgia or Michigan- milk, eggs, and maybe some more bulk food items that a lot of us buy and eat
on a monthly basis???

We have enjoyed shopping at a local produce wholesaler in Winston-Salem, NC on items not
available from our farms. Since prices on fruits and vegetables vary greatly with the season, if we
had the canning and storage facilities, we could really save by buying in season in bulk.

Only one believer in this survey had any family access to land over 5 acres, which disappointed
and surprised me. I would like to ask more believers here locally, but we can see the trend towards
having no land. I would also like to see how many of us rent, how many own, how many are buying
houses/land, how many have car payments, what do we spend on clothing per month, how much of our
budget is allocated to food, clothing, and shelter, etc. All this would best be gathered anonymously
of course. If we can strategically analyze our spending and find ways to cut it, we would all do a
great deal better. Our mission as given to us by the Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad is to pool our
resources and claim our own. Since there is no Spook-God, we have to attack our stagnation with
action and planning.

In the latest Final Call -vol 25, num 49 – there is a reprint from How To Eat To Live entitled:
Little Pure Food On Market. In it The Messenger proclaims that the foods available to us are
unhealthy, we know this. In 2006, the situation is more dire. They are putting bacteria on sandwich
meats, taking the natural nutrients out of foods and replacing them with synthetic compounds,
genetically modifying crops so that they won’t bear seed and reproduce – these are wicked,
depraved scientists. We cannot afford the luxury of depending on this system to provide for our well
being.

In Message To The Blackman in the chapter entitled Land Of Our Own And Qualifications,
We are instructed to gain some LAND of our own! How much of the 29,000,000 square miles of useful
land do we lay claim to? Food, clothing, and shelter are the basic needs of every man, woman, and
child. How much of these needs are we independent of the White man? If we can UNIFY and set up some
real working groups, pool our resources and start thinking independently, we surely can buy housing,
land and the means to providing clothing for ourselves and our people. This is where real WEALTH
comes from, not printed paper dollars!

If you are interested in participating in a similar survey, contact your local representative of
the Ministry of Agriculture.

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

In our last article, "’Snake’" has been
served", we brought you the testimony of Mr. Eddie Slaughter as he spoke on September 27th
at the forum called "Is There A Future for African Americans in Agriculture" during the
Congressional Black Caucus Annual Legislative Weekend. Also on that panel was Mr. Eddie Wise, a
Black farmer from North Carolina with experience in aquiculture. He presented to the audience some
of the changes and innovations that he was making to survive in the new agricultural environment of
low commodity prices. In particular he talked about growing talapia, a type of freshwater fish. He
said that there was a large potential market for talapia but right now he had to make some
production improvements because his fish had been "marked" for taste
discrepancies.

Immediately the author wondered, who does the taste testing? In the author’s experience with
farming in Georgia, the horror of carrying your product to market and waiting on white people to
stick a grade on it, then cut the price on your product based on their grading caused me to have
great empathy for Mr. Wise. The joke in farming is that a farmer must do everything 100% correct,
then he has 50-50 chance of making a profit. For a Black farmer those chances may further depend on
the mental state of white folks the day that he takes his product to market. Supply-demand and
racism must be factored into any equation that determines the price that the Black farmer expects
to receive.

The farmer is a slave to his crop from the time that he starts preparing the land until the day
that it goes to market. For most crops you are talking about a 3 to 5 month period that a farmer
must work and be eternally vigilant. One year we were growing watermelons and left the farm to
attend a one day meeting in Atlanta. When we got home that evening, every one of our watermelons,
that were due to be harvested a few weeks later, had a hole in it due to crows. We had put up all
types of devices to scare the crows away, but each morning we would have to ride out to the
watermelon patches to scare them away ourselves. The one morning that we did not do it, we lost all
the melons. This is the type of battle that farmers have to wage everyday.

It is almost impossible to farm and then fight off the farm for justice. And this is why the
Black farmers could be sold out by a "Snake" in the Reparations’
Grass, Alexander Pires. After all of the production struggles that a farmer has to put up with,
he has to deal with racists who are organized on a local and national level to take his farm, and a legal system that provides no justice for the Black and the poor.

The next day the author went to another workshop entitled "Agriculture in Global
Development". In this forum speakers talked about the great opportunities that exist in
agricultural development in Africa and trade with Africa. The speakers admonished Black farmers for
not broadening their horizons and looking to the "global market".

However, to participate in the global market you must have the ability to transport a low
valued, bulky, heavy and perishable product in shipload quantities. Now a ship holds 50,000 metric
tons. In terms of wheat it would take about 50,000 acres under cultivation to fill a ship.

Not too many individual farmers cultivate 50,000 acres. "Set up co-operatives" was one
of the suggestions put forward by the panel. In Terrell County Georgia 25 years ago there were 38
Black farmers. Now there are only two who collectively farm 900 acres. In the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s
when there were a lot of Black farmers in the South, there were a lot of "terrorists", Ku
Klux Klansmen, riding around burning up crops and setting fires to barns of those farmers who dared
to organize.

Fortunately, Mr. Ralph Page from the Federation of Southern Cooperatives was on the panel to
bring out the logistical problems of transportation and distance to markets faced by Black farmers.
Mr. Page also pointed out the low level of funding that is available for organizations trying to
help Black farmers. Mr. Page admonished the government agencies (USDA) and other donors for giving
out just enough funds for Black institutions to fight over, but not enough to address the deep
systemic problems that Black farmers face.

Taking this history and now the results of Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree, the question
asked in our previous article still holds: "…is there a policy of the US to take away the
Black farmers’ land and bring the Asians over here and give them our land?"

Visit us at: http://www.muhammadfarms.com

Peace, Doc

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

Do you remember what happened in 1995? Minister Farrakhan redeemed part of the 4500 acre farm
that the Honorable Elijah Muhammad had here in Georgia and 2 million black men showed up in
Washington, D.C. for the Million Man March. From the point of view of the American government this
was threatening: two million potential soldiers and land on which to grow their own food. What do
you think that America decided to do, sit back and do nothing? In 1996 she put into law the
"Freedom to Farm Bill" which essentially removed government price support programs for
the major commodities. This article will show you the economic effects of that shift.

But first let me say that starting on October 16, 2001 I was blessed to be sequestered for eight
days as a member of the Commission established to restructure and reorganize the Nation of Islam to
make it operate more efficiently. We were meeting to improve the Nation of Islam as America was
feeling the ripple effect of the September 11th bombing of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The
irony was not overlooked.

I was honored to be among so many great minds and dedicated servants to our people. It was
comforting to see that among us there was someone who had expertise in solving almost any problem
that Black people or any people in America were facing. I felt that there was someone among us to
watch our collective backs on each of the essential needs of our people. For some animals the
responsibility of providing the essential needs for survival are left to each individual. However,
in a civilized society one must depend on others and must contribute to others to insure survival
of the group or society.

For so long the question of food has never been a concern for Americans. Americans spend only 6%
of their income on food whereas the average for the rest of the world is 21%. Food is cheap. Cheap
food insures that the factory workers and other city dwellers will stay pacified and not revolt
against the government, as they did in France under the rule of King Louis XVI when the price of
food got too high.

The news media has not focused on the fact that over the last 3 to 4 years the level of suicide
among farmers has increased dramatically. The media is doing features like "The Fleecing of
America" and using farm subsidies as the culprits. Therefore in this article I will show you a
mathematical glimpse of the iceberg that has already struck the "Ship of State".

We farm in Southwest Georgia which is the agricultural back bone for this state and supplies a
substantial percent of peanuts and cotton for the entire country. Her 3.11 million acres of
cropland devoted to row crops are divided into 330,000 acres of soybeans, 510,000 acres of peanuts,
420,000 acres of corn, 350,000 acres of wheat and 1,500,000 acres of cotton. Although Georgia is
the second largest grower of fresh vegetables in the country, only 115,000 acres are devoted to
vegetables. This shows the dominance of row crops for the agricultural economy of Georgia.

The given assumption in Southwest Georgia is that if you are farming less than 5,000 acres you
need to turn your farm into a hunting plantation. And that is just what is being done. So for our
analysis we will look at a "typical" 5,000 acre farm in Southwest Georgia. We say
"typical" because we will divide the cropland acres according to distribution of those
crops for the 3.11 million acres of cropland for the state. Our "typical" farm therefore,
will grow 531 acres of soybeans, 820 acres of peanuts, 675 acres of corn, 563 acres of wheat and
2412 acres of cotton.

Our farm is "typical" in terms of its cost of production which is based on average
costs as estimated by the University of Georgia Agricultural Economics Department. Our farm
receives the average price which is the market price for this area of Georgia. Farmers do not set
prices. Agriculture is one of the last true competitive markets where supply and demand determine
prices and not monopolies or oligopolies (cartels). The farmer generally will not know what price
he can expect until after harvest.

Now let’s look at Table 1 (below) and take soybeans as an example. This typical farmer grows
531 acres of soybeans and sells it at the market price of $3.92 and receives $62,392. His variable
costs (seed, fertilizer, chemicals, labor and harvesting, etc.) are $65,936 which are $3,544 over
his gross sales. Therefore soybeans does not return enough money to pay for its immediate costs for
producing it. When you add in the fixed costs (land and equipment leases, insurance, taxes,
interest, depreciation and repairs), this typical farmer loses another $33, 838 which results in a
grand loss of $37,382.

Now if you look at the other commodities, this farmer loses $59,928 on corn, $55,128 on wheat
and $582,000 on cotton. The only commodity that produces a profit is peanuts in which he receives a
profit of $245,062. When you add it all up, this farmer loses $489,578.

Now one might say, "Well, the farmer needs to grow just peanuts and forget about the
rest". However, the only reason that peanuts return a profit year after year is that the
government subsidizes the price of peanuts and restricts the total acreage of peanuts. A farmer is
given a certain allotment of what he can grow and still get the government subsidized price. There
used to be such subsidies and crop acreage restrictions on the other major commodities such as corn
and wheat until the passage of the 1996 farm bill.

TABLE 1:   TYPICAL GEORGIA FARM    COST AND RETURNS (2001)

———————————————————————————————–

                       
SOYBEAN   PEANUT   CORN     WHEAT   
COTTON  TOTAL

ACRES                       
531        
820         
675         
563         
2412          5000

PRICES                     
3.92        0.30        
1.96        
1.97            0.30

GROSS SALES      62,392  695,633    
99,260     44,341      470,257  1,371,884

VAR. COSTS         65,936  345,800  
106,006     69,623      779,638  1,367,003

———————————————————————————————–

VAR. RET.              
-3544   349,834      -6746   
-25,282    -309,381          4881

———————————————————————————————–

FIXED COST          33,838  
104,771     53,182     29,846    
272,822     494,459

TOTAL COST         99,775  
450,571   159,188     99,469  1,052,460  1,861,462

=====================================================================

PROFITS (LOSES) -37,382    245,062   -59,928  
-55,128   -582,203   -489,578

R.O.I.                         
-37%          54%      
-38%       -55%       
-55%         -26%

=====================================================================

One may also argue that this year, 2001, was a non-typical year in terms of prices received by
farmers. Table 2 represents the market prices for soybeans, peanuts, corn, wheat and cotton for the
years 1995 through 2001.

Table 2: MARKET PRICES 1995-2001

————————————————————————————-

YEAR SOYB.   PEANUT    CORN   WHEAT  
COTTON    PROFITS     R.O.I.

1995      
6.71           
0.30       
3.55         
3.39            
0.77      379,412       20%

1996      
6.87           
0.30       
3.58         
4.38            
0.71      314,734       17%

1997      
6.68           
0.30        
2.90        
3.19            
0.68       220,372      12%

1998      
5.24           
0.30        
2.46        
2.60             
0.65      119,567        6%

1999      
4.60           
0.27         
2.25       
2.30             
0.44     -308,358    -17%

2000      
4.53           
0.30         
2.03       
2.14              0.58       
-33,591      -2%

2001      
3.92           
0.30         
1.96       
1.97             
0.30      -489,578     -26%

============================================================

                                                                                   
TOTAL      202,558       10%

                                                             
YEARLY AVERAGE         28,937     1.4%

============================================================

As you can see prices have dropped precipitously since 1996 for each of these five commodities
except peanuts. Soybean prices in 2001 were almost one half of what they were in 1996. The same can
be said for corn, wheat and cotton. The cumulative result of these falling prices is that although
our typical farm experienced substantial profits for 1995, 1996 and 1997, those profits were
dropping and finally went extremely negative in 1999 through 2001. Now couple this drop in prices
with a three year drought starting in 1998 which has not yet been factored into our analysis and
one will begin to see the precipice over which our farmers are looking. Without the drought from
1998 through 2001 our "typical" farmer would have lost, on average, $177,990 per year.

Going back to Table 1 we see that our "typical" farmer spends $1,367,003 for variable
inputs so that he can produce a crop. The farmer must put this money into the ground and leave it
there for from 3 to 4 months depending on the crop. He either must have this $1.37 million dollars
in cash or borrow this money from lenders. Now if you were looking at our "typical"
farmer according to the historical price trends and cost data that you have in Tables 1 and 2 would you
loan him $1.37 million dollars in operating capital for the coming year?

A city person’s simple solution for our "typical" farmer may be, "Quit farming
and get a real job".

If they follow this "logical" course, what will you eat? Food don’t grow on white
concrete.

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

In an article published just before the 2000 presidential selections, we mean elections, called
"Slaves to two parties", we wrote:

"Here we have an example of the poor slave torn between leaving one slave master that treats
him bad to another one who treats him worse. The Democrats promise much but deliver crumbs and the
Republicans just whip that head. When the Democrats get in office they tell Black folk that they can
not deliver on all of their campaign promises because of the "white backlash" that would
take them out of office in the next election. When the Republicans get in office, they say that they
don’t owe Black folk anything because they did not vote for the Republicans."

So now, what are we to make of the recent election of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, as the
governor of California, who was strongly supported by his wife, Maria Shriver, Democrat, of the
Kennedy clan? We have tried to explain to the Black farmers that the only difference between the
"Republigangs" and "Demonrats" is that one holds a gun in your face while the
other points one at your back. Now we have clear evidence that "elephants" and
"donkeys" are in bed together. No matter what their seeming differences are in the public,
in private they are in bed together.

It has not mattered which party has been in office, the USDA continued to take Black farmers’
land and deny them due process at any level. A plan developed in 1962 by the Committee for Economic
Development called "An Adaptive Approach for Agriculture" was designed to "Reduce
Farm Labor Force by One-third in Five Years." It seems that such plans were continued no matter
who was sitting in the White House or who had the majority in the House or Senate. Black farmers
were just the weaker set of small farmers targeted by this government for takeover by agricultural
conglomerates now understood to be the "merchants of death".

In the meantime the "Demonrats" and "Republigangs" have used their positions
of power to split up whatever movement or unity of their Black farmer victims. The Black Farmers and
Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) was established in 1997 to try to get justice from the USDA. The
organization managed to pull many farmers together under one umbrella to fight this beast. BFAA
organized a number of rallies and even was "successful" at getting a lawsuit settled in
federal court. However, many farmers were denied in the Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit, but efforts to
save these Black farmers from losing their land have been sabotaged by first the Democrats who
offered a chance for USDA money to one set of farmers, if they could put the "radical"
BFAA leadership in check. When all members did not agree, one group split from the main body.

The Republicans then won the White House and the House majority position and hinted to Black
farmers that there was some USDA money that could be made available, if they would get rid of the
leadership of BFAA that had strong ties to the Democratic party. When all the members could not
agree, another group split but maintained the organizational name and became chartered in another
state. The aftermath is there are at least three different groups of farmers calling themselves BFAA.
So, although the Democrats and Republicans can sleep together, Black farmers are divided over which
set of "good" white folk will help them.

What is really sad about all of this is that these "good" white folk never put anything
in writing. So Black farmers are stuck with "who said, he said".

Add to this the fact that one farmer in Virginia ,who was not in the lawsuit but was waging his
own fight with the USDA for 11 years, finally got a settlement of $6.6 million dollars. Since his
victory another set of lawyers are offering Black farmers a chance at going the administrative route
to settle their grievances against the USDA. So now the Black farmers are divided on how to pursue
another elusive "pot of gold".

What the farmers and new set of lawyers may not know, is that the assistant secretary for civil
rights of the USDA, Lou Gallegos, retired right after signing the papers that would grant Mr. Will
Warren his $6.6 million settlement. According to an August 3, 2003 article in a Richmond, VA
newspaper, The Times-Dispatch, Mr. Gallegos said that he "got the cold shoulder" and
"…became nobody’s hero" after making a decision that was "opposed at high
levels." He retired on June 30, 2003 at age 64, although he had only been in the position since
May of 2001.

Mr. Gallegos paid the price for doing the right thing. We wonder if the new assistant secretary
who replaced him will follow the example of Mr. Gallegoes or, instead, learn a lesson in job
security based on the consequences of such actions? We also wonder when Black farmers in particular
and Black people in general will learn that "Demonrats" and "Republigangs" sleep
together.

So as the results have been counted in the California recall election and we look forward to the
2004 presidential elections, remember a sonnet from my "Year 2000 Election" poem, called
"The Grinch that stole my vote":

"Two parties, two parties,

We must have two parties.

Let the fools choose,

Cause they always will lose."

"I’ll be back" in 2004 to see what we have learned from this "soap opera"
of "politricks". In the mean time we are getting closer to white America’s Thanksgiving
celebration. Families of "Republigangs" and "Demonrats" will be arguing over how
to carve up the turkey and who will get the thigh or wing. The "turkeys" should use this
time to develop an "Exodus Strategy", instead of betting on which party will get the
choice cuts.

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

In 1982 the Republican president, Ronald Regan, basically shut down the Civil Rights
Division at the USDA by cutting off funds to the legislatively mandated office. However, the
continued pressure by Black farmers and in particular the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association (BFAA) has forced the Republican controlled government to reinstate the Civil Rights
Division and elevated it to a sub-secretarial position. The first Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, Mr. Vernon Parker met with BFAA members and other farmers on Thursday, October 14^th
in Tillery, NC to answer questions about "The Status of the Office of Civil Rights at USDA."

Many of the farmers present had specific issues concerning the Pigford v. Venneman
(Glickman) class action lawsuit. Mr. Parker was quick to point out that because of the
provisions in the court ordered consent decree, the USDA was no longer responsible for dealing with
any issues concerning its implementation. However, his office has put into place certain initiatives
and policies designed to prevent future discrimination or at least give clear guidance as to
how farmers can proceed with a civil rights complaint about how their applications for
services from the USDA local offices are handled.

Five farmers brought forward cases or problems with USDA. Mr. Parker pointed out that in some of
the cases the farmers had to go through other channels other than the USDA, while he promised to
immediately handle those cases under his jurisdiction. Mr. Parker’s scorecard on the handling of
these cases will be taken up at 7^th National Black Land Loss Summit to be held in Tillery,
NC February 18 and 20, 2005.

One farmer asked "Why weren’t the loan officers fired who discriminated against Black
farmers?"

One of Mr. Parker’s assistants, Mr. Hofeller, Director of FSA, answered by saying: "You
have to understand that government workers have rights too. If we can get a probable case, we can
take an action. Most is done covertly; therefore it is hard to prove anything. The farmers can use
the new Customer Service Card to file complaints on issues of discrimination or
service."

Mr. Parker assured the audience that once a county office receives a number of such complaints,
his office would go to that office to make a full investigation.  You can find the procedures
for filing complaints by going on line at: http://www.usda.gov/cr/OCR/Program%20Procedures.htm

The USDA has a unique way of managing how programs and funds are handled on a local level. Each
county in the US has a "county committee" which hires USDA personnel and develops policies
as to how loans are approved or how subsidies are dispensed. Black farmers have complained for years
about this "good ole boy" system which favors the large white landowners in their
counties. Many of the discrimination complaints against the USDA have been dropped in the laps of
these "county committee" members who are not USDA employees and therefore are not subject
to USDA discipline.

Until recently the USDA has feigned ignorance about the type of discrimination being levied out
by this system. However, a researcher has discovered that from the very inception of the county
committee system, experts have been warning the USDA about its fallacies. Dr Spencer Wood said,
"In 1933, W.I. Blackstone warned that the committee system would not work. And Tugwell said in
1935 that the committee system was not grass roots democracy by ‘grass tops democracy’."

A farmer in the audience asked, "What are you going to do in the future to move this
forward?"

Mr. Parker answered by saying,

" We admit that the USDA has had some problems, but one of our achievements is that we
have entered into a memo of understanding with Marriott Hotels to buy produce from black
farmers. We want you to understand what it took to get to this point. Pigford did not deal with
the cause of the discrimination. The changes that we have brought to you today will bring
fruits tomorrow. Why don’t you be supportive of the things that we are trying to do, so that
we can do more? I want to give a public acknowledgement of the good work of Mr. Grant in
bringing these issues to the forefront."

Mr. Grant responded by saying,

"The Asst. Sec. of Ag for Civil Rights is a position that grew out of the Black farmers
struggle. This is a victory of the movement to get these positions and programs put in place
that will have an effect. It pains me when black groups and 1890s wind up divided. The farmers
came to the government to get back the land, not $50,000. We appreciate what you are doing but
it is your job to take the heat. Black folk have always been the conscious of this country and
will always be."

Attorney Stephon Bowens also updated the audience on the status of Attorney Alexander Pires who
was the lead attorney for the Black farmers in the Pigford v. Glickman class action lawsuit.
Many Black farmers feel that Mr. Pires messed up their chance for justice by producing a consent
decree that allowed the government to pick and choose who they would compensate and relieve their
debt.

Mr. Bowens said,

"The court has asked other attorneys to step in and help Mr. Pires in other class action
lawsuits against the USDA for which he is responsible including the Black farmers, women
farmers, Latino farmers and Native American farmers. He has been sanctioned and had to pay to
the courts approximately $1 million for failure to comply with the courts orders in
conjunction with the Black farmers (Pigford) lawsuit."

Although the courts in D.C. seem to have slapped Mr. Pires on the wrist, these penalties do not
help the thousands of Black farmers who failed to prevail in the lawsuit and now are facing
foreclosure. Mr. Parker suggested that the Black farmers need a legislative remedy to address their
losses.

Thus, we must say that it will take the outcry of 40 million Black people in unison to make
the powers on the Hill respond with justice. The unity of 40 million Black people united to survive
is the only thing that will stop this government from playing the three branches shell game with
justice as the "pea". When the three powers on the Hill (executive, legislative and
judicial) feel the power of the people, only then will they figure out a way to give justice to the
most recent victims of illegal land grabs, i.e. the Black farmers.

by Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min Muhammad

The Farmer Newsletter (FN): What do you think
was the most significant part of the MMM?

Gary Grant (GG): I would say the bringing of families into the movement. This showed the
unification of family more than at the Million Man, Million Women, and Million Worker marches.

FN: Min. Farrakhan laid out some issues facing Black people’s health as it relates to
the food

they consume. He also related the need to help the Black farmers. What connection do you see
between health of the Black communities and the Black farmer struggle?

GG: Certainly we must say that the health of the Black community has deteriorated since
the introduction of food stamps to the community, even though they were supposed to increase the
health of the community. I believe that it was you, Dr. Ridgely, who coined the phrase, "they
gave us food stamps and took away our land" so that the people would be dependent on the
system. Certainly the push for healthy communities is connected to land ownership and the number of
Black farmers we would have growing food. Let us not say just Black farmers, but small family
farmers who would be growing food locally, so people would actually have fresh produce that has not
been poisoned or contaminated.

As Min. Farrakhan began to name the pieces of the structures that were to put in place, he first
named the Ministry of Health. The second one was the Ministry of Agriculture. So we know that those
two pieces are intricately related.

FN: How best can the MMM help the Black farmer struggle in the future?

GG: Well I think the fact that the Black farmer issues were allowed to be presented on the
main stage on Saturday certainly moved the issue to the forefront. The movement can help our city
cousins to now understand that they can form co-ops in the cities that can grow into grocery stores.
At the same time one of the pieces of that platform is that the people need to invest in the farmer
before the crop is planted and once the crop is harvested they would be able to receive their
portion of that investment. Now they would have a stake in insuring that the farmer has a successful
crop. Also with children being there and hearing the word "agriculture" and hearing the
word "Black farmer", some may be inclined to find out more about agriculture and possibly
developing a career around it.

FN: We noticed that you had some volunteers out getting petitions signed. What was the nature
of those petitions and how might they help the Black farmers?

GG: Those petitions were designed to help get through two pieces of
legislation. One is called the "Black Farmers Judicial Equity Act of 2005" and the other
is called the "Endangered Black Farmer Act of 2005". The Black Farmers Equity Act would
address some 67,000 late claims of the Pigford Class Action lawsuit that were not even looked at as
potential members of the class. It also is designed to help the Black farmers who were accepted into
the class but denied the remedy and are now subject, once again, to USDA foreclosure proceedings.
The "Endangered Black Farmer Act" would establish the Black farmer as a separate group and
not just part of some "minority" where the Black farmer gets tossed in with everybody at
the USDA. Now much of the proceeds supposedly earmarked for Black farmers wind up going to other
"minorities". This legislation is designed to change these policies and impact other
policies at the USDA that have forced the Black farmers out of business.

FN: Is this petition drive to continue beyond the MMM event on Oct. 15th.?

GG: Yes, we got probably 500 or more petitions signed that day. We are currently mailing
the monthly BFAA Newsletter which, along with highlighting the Millions More Movement, includes a
petition that our readers can fill out and send to their congressperson. We are ultimately seeking
to get 10,000 signatures that will influence the course of the debate on these issues once they are
presented to congress. We are working with some congress people in the South who may help us get
this legislation put on the House floor.

FN: I know that there has been a level of disunity within the Black farmer movement. Now that
you have become an integral part of the MMM, you even gave a short speech on the Mall, how can you
leverage this exposure to pull back together the Black farmers and organizations?

GG: Well, one thing is that the original Black Farmers & Agriculturists Association of
which I am the president, has remained consistent. We have been here. We have not refused to talk to
anyone including those who set up an offshoot organization. We will continue to be and maintain a
level of dignity and high standards. Being a part of the MMM added more credibility to the fact that
this is the legitimate organization and it has been recognized by the Nation of Islam (NOI) that
this BFAA is the organization that actually speaks for Black farmers.

FN: I know that you know a little about the NOI. How can it best help you and your
mission?

GG: I think first of all they can help us by supporting their own agricultural programs
down in Georgia where they own 1600 acres of farm land. And also, we should include either myself or
our vice-president in any further sessions and planning for future movements that would involve
those pieces of what the Minister talked about. This would insure that agriculture not get pushed to
the side by some of our "city cousins."

FN: Do you think that Min. Farrakhan’s call that we get into food production and control it
from the ground to the dinner table in the cities is the best solution and do you think it is
realistic?

GG: I think that it is very realistic, because in that process you "produce"
jobs not only on the farm. If we grow the food, we also have to build the structures to process the
food, transport the food, store the food and distribute the food. Each of these processes would be
new jobs for our young people within the community. I think that the Nation can also help along
these lines. Not everyone wants to live in the city and not everyone wants to work a 9 to 5 job.
People who want to farm should have the opportunity to farm and people who want safe and healthy
food should have it readily available. The only way for that to happen is that there must be a
restoration of Black farms and white small family farms across the nation.

FN: Since 25% of the Black farmers are over 70 and only 4% or under 35, where will the
next generation of Black farmers come from? Is there some type of mentoring program transferring
knowledge from the old to the young farmers?

GG: That is one of the programs that we are working on. There were some programs going on
in the cities. We must also become more visible in the rural areas. In N.C. they are actually taking
agriculture out of the class room in the rural communities. We are going to have to insist that
these courses be put back in. We think that once our young people see that when you are controlling
the food system from the "land to the man", it becomes a profitable business. In the past
they have seen their parents struggle to keep the land and because of that experience they drifted
away from agriculture. But we think that we can reverse that trend once we can show them that it can
be a profitable business.

FN: I know that you are on the boards of both the BFAA and the BFLT. Why do we need both
organizations?

GG: The Black Family Land Trust was actually called for by BFAA. In fact it was BFAA that
got the initial people and organizations together along with the Concerned Citizens of Tillery, and
the Conservation Fund. The BFLT will introduce some programs that have been used within the
conservation community to preserve farm land for Black farmers and rural communities. BFLT is
composed of a consortium of 15 organizations and numerous individuals dedicated to save Black farm
land. Some of the organizations include the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Land Loss
Prevention Project, Muhammad Farms, The Conservation Fund, and the American Farmland Trust.

Currently BFLT is establishing itself in six southern states: Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. BFAA is a national organization already with members is
most of the 50 states and developing state chapters in 22 states.

It is good that BFLT is separate from BFAA because we need to establish a revolving loan fund to
help preserve land that is under some type of financial crisis. BFAA works a lot with politics and
fighting the USDA. We did not want to have our financial institution tied to our political thrust
institution in order to protect both.

FN: What is the next thing on the agenda within the Black farmer struggle?

GG: The Black Land Loss Summit will take place again in February 2006. A wonderful exhibit
on Black farmers will take place in Baltimore, Md on February 2, 2006 at the Reginald Lewis Museum
and Cultural Center. It will be a traveling exhibit that will expose many areas of the country to
Black farmers and our struggle.

I would like to applaud Minister Farrakhan for calling for the Million Man March and the sisters
for the Million Women March and again Minister Farrakhan for calling for the Millions More Movement.
"Movement" is a much better word than "march", because a "march" has
an end and a "movement" continues. So we are just beginning and I believe that if we all
go back to our communities and start organizing, we can all make a difference and transform this
country into the "Promised Land" that it was supposed to be.

FN: Thank you.

Books and lectures by Dr.
Ridgely A. Mu’min