US Latinx Activism and Protests: From the Farm to the (Legislative) Table

Campesinos of the South Central Farm

The 1992 Los Angeles Riots were one of the most violent social upheavals in US history. They were triggered by the acquittal of white police officers responsible for the beating of Rodney King, a Black man. Racial tensions along with economic inequality intensified the unrest, resulting in widespread destruction and looting. The South-Central region of Los Angeles was at the center of these riots. Following the aftermath, the city aimed to tackle its underlying causes. Residents in South-Central LA, a heavily industrialized neighborhood, were given land to increase their access to fresh crops and alleviate the frustrations experienced by those affected by poverty and unemployment. The garden became operational in 1994 and quickly transformed into a large urban farm.

Mexican-Americans and other Latino migrants during this time period experienced high unemployment rates, second to only African-Americans (LA Times). This caused many struggling to earn enough money to support themselves and their families. The farm alleviated some of these financial burdens by reducing food costs and encouraging healthier lifestyles with organic crops, which was previously only accessible to the rich. According to The Garden documentary, each family was allowed one land plot to cultivate. These plots often contained a variety of different crops and flowers. Since selling for profit was not permitted, crops were grown for personal consumption and enjoyment. Farmers often shared knowledge with neighboring plots to supplement each other's existing inventories. This approach required campesinos to trust and cooperate with each other, fostering a strong sense of community. The farm became a nurturing environment where farmers provided support and care for one another.

When the land was sold to Ralph Horowitz in 2003, the Campesinos refused to leave the farm (The Garden). Their actions were not driven by a disregard for the landowner’s property rights but due to their heavy reliance on the farm as their main food source. Despite knowing of this imminent demolition threat, the campesinos had no choice but to continue working the farm for survival. This was made worse by the allocation of resources to the legal efforts needed to challenge the eviction orders which caused many to not have enough funds to purchase seeds. As a result, campesinos pooled seed supplies together in order to support their struggling neighbors. In addition, the seed table had a spray-painted message that portrayed a fearful sentiment of how the garden demolition would destroy the dreams and livelihoods of all farmers. This scene demonstrated the care and sympathy campesinos had for each other during financial hardships. The shared sentiment fostered familial bonds among the campesinos and united them against a common threat to their established way of life.


Horowitz initially agreed to sell the property but backed off due to his disapproval of the campesinos’ “cause and conduct.” He clarified that he would not sell the property to the farmers regardless of the amount of money (The Garden). His refusal can be interpreted as Horowitz perceiving the opposition as disruptive and unlawful, invoking stereotypes that cast poor farmers as criminals. His disregard for his own words revealed that he did not consider the Campesinos as equal parties in the conflict. An appeals court reversed the lower’s court demolition injunction, which forced the campesinos to obstruct traffic and prevent bulldozers from entering the farm. This showcased the farmers' persistence in safeguarding the land they cherished and preserving the memories they had cultivated there. However, the protesters were seen as disruptive and were apprehended by police. By not helping the protesters, the police were perceived as being aligned with wealthy landowners rather than community members. This also created an impression that the police could be easily influenced by the wealth of certain individuals and were adversaries rather than protectors of the community. Despite heartfelt pleas, the protesters were unable to change the farm’s fate. Their tearful faces can be seen while viewing the destruction. As a result, the land was cleared and left barren for over a decade.

Overall, the South Central Farmers adopted many strategies used by the Chicano Farm Worker movement such as peaceful public protests, direct appeal to politicians, and support mobilization in local communities. The demolition exposed the wealth and power disparity of Chicano farmers, who were left to scramble for another source of food. While the owner's refusal to sell the land exposed inherent racism in the public’s general thoughts. Their failed efforts to continue operations demonstrate the years of marginalization and underrepresentation endured by farmers, underscoring their demands for equal justice and treatment.



Citations:

This page has paths:

This page references: