How do we make sense of these complicated legal battles? One journalist has argued that Obama's call to consider the cases jointly is a result of mistaking the Cobell case for Keepseagle, another settlement involving Indian farmers, and that the actual terms of each case require individual consideration. It might also be argued that any contestation over property rights with the U.S. government by any other group can never be considered on the same terms as Native people.
At the same time, is there also something to be said for the loss of potential coalition-building between the two groups, despite the specificities of each case? As Carol Estes points out in her article, one major factor stalling the progress of Pigford II was the counterintuitive decree requiring each individual farmer to provide evidence of discrimination in separate "mini-trials," evidence nearly impossible to come by since it involved white farmers willingly providing information on loans they received. In a case like this that deals with systematic discrimination, it seems counterintuitive to rely on a legal process hinged on isolated judgements of individual cases. Bringing the matter back to Cobell and Pigford II, does a complete separation of the cases further support the bureaucratic nightmare of the federal process? Or is the integrity of each case lost in strategic alliance as is sometime inevitable in the coalition-building process?
-CK
Cited:
Estes, Carol. June 30, 2001. "Second Chance For Black Farmers" YES! Magazine. http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/reclaiming-the-commons/second-chance-for-black-farmers
Further Reading:
