Community needs in the public eye
In partial response to Chris’s second discussion question, I would say that the urban location of the South Central Farm definitely does play into claims to the right to farm on it. Those who farmed those acres for decades were not, like the laborers in Mitchell’s discussion, migratory workers who could be shunted from place to place in order to make their livings. Rather, they were permanent residents of Southern LA who could not be expected to simply pack up and move on if they were told they could no longer use the land they relied on (at least partly) for consistent food.
Being in the center of an urban area also puts the farm into a much brighter public spotlight, as it is an unavoidable presence in daily life. Under the cultivation of the farmers it was a productive, cooperative, and beautiful space, while during the turmoil over the growers’ eviction it was a source of chaos (as easily seen in the trailer for the documentary in Chris’s link), and now it lies obviously fallow and overgrown. A community farm thus abandoned on the outskirts of a city would likely derive far less public attention and debate, and the objections of the farmers forced out of it would carry much less far.
I think Fonzy makes a good point when he says that, for many, community farms, such as South Central used to be, are positive, educational outlets that, due to economic conditions, are unavailable in other forms. I think it is important to note that it is exactly this idea of “community” that makes these farms important. Migratory workers in the 20s and 30s had no claim to community as they passed relentlessly up and down the Californian coast looking for work, and so it was easy for the public to ignore their needs and deny them any claim to normalcy or consistency. These destitute laborers belonged nowhere, so they had no ground to stand on as a community deserving of basic rights, and instead of receiving a sympathetic ear, their complaints were met with time and time again with only violent oppression.
Being in the center of an urban area also puts the farm into a much brighter public spotlight, as it is an unavoidable presence in daily life. Under the cultivation of the farmers it was a productive, cooperative, and beautiful space, while during the turmoil over the growers’ eviction it was a source of chaos (as easily seen in the trailer for the documentary in Chris’s link), and now it lies obviously fallow and overgrown. A community farm thus abandoned on the outskirts of a city would likely derive far less public attention and debate, and the objections of the farmers forced out of it would carry much less far.
I think Fonzy makes a good point when he says that, for many, community farms, such as South Central used to be, are positive, educational outlets that, due to economic conditions, are unavailable in other forms. I think it is important to note that it is exactly this idea of “community” that makes these farms important. Migratory workers in the 20s and 30s had no claim to community as they passed relentlessly up and down the Californian coast looking for work, and so it was easy for the public to ignore their needs and deny them any claim to normalcy or consistency. These destitute laborers belonged nowhere, so they had no ground to stand on as a community deserving of basic rights, and instead of receiving a sympathetic ear, their complaints were met with time and time again with only violent oppression.
This page comments on:
Producing Landscape: Claims to "Grow" in California by Christofer Rodelo (15 October 2014)
Discussion of "Community needs in the public eye"
Add your voice to this discussion.
Checking your signed in status ...