Power and the organized community. The basics of participatory democracy.

Initiated by the Autonómia Foundation, we gave a training today with Bálint Vojtonovszki for young Roma and non-Roma who want to apply for the European Union's Youth In Action funds. Our aim was to help participants gain new skills so that they can more effectively reach out to people living in their settlement, involve them in the project preparation process and have more people take a role in the implementation of the project.

Participants increased their knowledge in:
- techniques to increase group cohesion
- community needs surveys: listening tours and one-to-ones
- organizing skills and building the organization
- a good leader and their responsibilities
- facilitation techniques, role of a moderator, how to cope with tension in group discussions, putting together the agenda
- involving new people in group work and recruit members
- power

TRAINING AGENDA

9.00-9.25: INTRODUCTION

9.25-9.35: COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES. We lay down the principles we want to use when we communicate in the group, thus we learn a technique to moderate a group discussion.

9.35-10.10: IDEAL SETTLEMENT - STRUGGLE FOR POWER
We use the communication principles in the group work, and in an activity we create a situation when community members cannot realize their urban development ideas due to external influence.

10.10-10.25: ORGANIZED COMMUNITY I.
We collect ideas about how a community can become stronger and more effective in representing their interest towards decision-makers.

10.25-10.45: BREAK

10.45-11.15: ORGANIZED COMMUNITY II.
Techniques to involve new people. Introducing the listening tour. We collect ideas how we can identify community issues, involve new members and build the organization.

11.15-11.35: ONE-TO-ONE
Practicing one-to-ones as part of the listening tour.

11.35-12.00: FIRST GROUP MEETING I.
What is a good meeting like? What is the role of the moderator? How can participants contribute to a successful meeting? How do you facilitate a meeting?

12.00-13.00: LUNCH BREAK

13.00-14.15: FIRST GROUP MEETING II.
Preparing the meeting. Elaborating the recruitment plan and the agenda of the meeting.

14.15-14.45: POWER
What is power? Scale line.

14.45-15.00: CLOSE

Thanks to Marci Gosztonyi for brainstorming about the training concept.

Read it in Hungarian.

Our young democracy

Hungary is a young democracy. It will be a healthy and real democracy when more and more social classes and groups will be able to influence and participate in the decision-making processes. In order for this to happen, people usually excluded from decision-making should be able to formulate their demands, get to the table of the decision-makers through community power, and challenge social inequality through democratic means. With a united voice and good tactics, they can achieve real representation. How can we use community organizing to enhance real democracy in Hungary? What is power? Is community organizing only confrontation? This interview with me on a Hungarian community radio station Civil Radio tells us more about these topics.

Civil Rádió: Demokrácia MOST! 2013. január 30., Part 1 (in Hungarian)
Civil Rádió: Demokrácia MOST! 2013. január 30., Part 2 (in Hungarian)

This post is the third in a series where I collect what I like in community organizing in the U.S. "Democracy is not an end but the best means toward achieving these values [equality, justice, freedom, peace, a deep concern for the preciousness of human life, and all those rights and values propounded by Judeo-Christianity and the democratic political tradition]." (Saul Alinsky) Like: community organizing is the catalyst of democracy.

Read it in Hungarian.

Who gains admission and who counts white? - Immigrants organize now and then (Part 2)

Source: minnesota.publicradio.org

As second-generation immigrants, the DREAMers had a family and financial background that enabled them to complete a high school or even a community college. They are the "cream" of the undocumented immigrants. Obviously, there are huge class differences among undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants who enter the country with a tourist or work visa, then overstay after the time of admission has expired, are often in better financial shape and better educated. Those, who by risking their lives, cross the border illegally, will try to get a job wherever it is possible without a work permit, for example, in the construction industry, in the service industry (in restaurants) or in agriculture. They may do manual labor or work for an acquaintance or for a family member, so for those who already got themselves on firm ground, and with the help of others, it is easier to remain invisible to the authorities. If their employee does not pay their wage, or deducts undeclared expenses from their wage, or binds them with debts or commits sexual assault against them, they may risk their stay if they file a complaint. The employees who abuse their workers benefit from the large flow of undocumented immigrant workers, who can replace those who complain, organize or unionize. (Read Part 1 here.)


Working-class undocumented immigrants organize: César Chávez and the non-violent movement of farmworkers and their unions

Huelga - Strike. Source: Tavaana

In 2009, approximately 2.5 to 3 million people worked in the American agriculture, and 72 percent of them were immigrants, with the majority being Mexican (IPC, NCFH). Their links to the U.S. are strong, some of them were born here. Their status can be manyfold. More than one million of them work undocumented (IPC). As a result of the strong agrilobby, federal laws that govern wages, overtime and benefits do not apply to farmworkers and they may be protected by state law (PCUN). Ultimately, the employer treats the illegal workers as they like. The U.S., in addition, allows 30 thousand people (3-5 percent of the agricultural workers) to legally work as a guest worker for less than a year in American agriculture. The growers, referring to the lack of a local workforce, can initiate their participation in the guest worker employment program after they cannot fill the jobs despite thorough job announcements. The H-2A visa, which provides legal status for these workers, theoretically provide some protection. For example, it determines that wages cannot be lower than the minimum wage, and it sets housing standards to some extent. However, because the workers are not in the position to change a workplace in case the employer does not meet legal obligations, and because by submitting a complaint they would risk their stay, or their possible renewal of employment in the next season, and because the state supervision of the implementation of this law is not comprehensive, abuse is not unusual. Many workers, in addition, arrive deeply in debt because they covered the transportation cost or paid recruiters for the opportunity to work. Transportation costs must be reimbursed by the employer for the worker if they completed at least half of the work contract period. As a result of the lack of proper protection, the workers are forced to stay despite unsatisfactory circumstances. It also happens that the employer avoids paying transportation costs back to the home country of the worker after their contract ends. On the other hand, those farmworkers who live in the country legally or without proper documents, or who may be citizens, are indirect subjects to the exploitative system: the employers, for the sake of greater profits, decide to employ those who they need to pay less (because, for example, they don't need to pay Social Security on the wages of the guestworker) (Working Immigrants).

In 1962, César Chávez started to organize among farmworkers. His parents immigrated from Mexico to Arizona, and he was born in 1927 in the U.S. His family lost their farm during the economic depression of the 1930s when he was a child and the impoverished family moved to California where they started to work as farmworkers. The situation of the Spanish-speaking population was in many aspects similar to the African-Americans living in the southern states. The education was segregated in many schools, it was forbidden to speak in Spanish, and the society fundamentally disdained people with Mexican origin. There were restaurants where only whites were served. Chávez worked as a farmworker, followed by two years in the military, then in 1952, he started to work for Fred Ross, a community organizer affiliated with Saul Alinsky, where he became the director of the organization in 1958. The Community Service Organization, however, did not commit itself to organize farmworkers, so Chávez quit his job in 1962 and started to organize with his allies.

Get out the vote campaign. Source: UFW

In 1960, in California a group of large-scale farmers emerged who carried out specialty crop and industrialized agricultural production. This system needed a lot of investment from different parties, especially because of the high number of dry regions, so stakeholders from banks, agricultural machinery and irrigation system production to the packing and transportation industry and wholesalers and retailers all had an interest in the maintenance of this agribusiness. As a result, the farmworkers, who were practically at the bottom of the capitalist pyramid, had to represent power not only against the growers, but a well-extended and influential network of business stakeholders, who successfully drowned all their organizing initiatives in the last few decades. (2003: Dalton)

Chávez aimed for unionizing a huge number of workers so that they can collectively bargain with the growers and the employees hire the workers through the union. His movement protected the interests of the settled-down farmworkers, often against the miserable guestworkers brought from Mexico for seasonal work under the so-called Bracero program. Under this federal program, which ran between 1942-64, the avoidance of paying the minimum wage to guestworkers was not too difficult, therefore the growers could torpedo the organizing efforts of settled-down farmworkers through their easy access to the cheap labor of several thousands of guestworkers who were admitted to the country in the 1950-60s.

The overall strategy of Chávez used was that he first built a mass base of workers, who could then put substantial pressure on decision-makers. In 1962, he founded the National Farm Workers Association (NFWA) with Dolores Huerta, where he offered modest benefits and support to members through a membership fee. However, the three-year long relationship building and recruitment went slowly, because NFWA hadn't had any victories which would have made the organization reliable to potential members. Finally, a 1965 strike gave impetus and helped the organization grow. A mainly Filipino workers' organization (AWOC) started a strike against grape growers in the Delano region in California and invited NFWA to join. As a result of the call and the three years of recruitment and relationship building, 1,200 families joined. A five-year strike started and the two organizations united to establish the United Farm Workers (UFW). In 1970, the grape growers in the Delano region, due to local, national and international pressure, signed a three-year contract with UFW, which brought enormous success to the movement. In 1968, U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy also joined one of their actions.

A crop duster is spraying pesticides,
while farm workers are working
in the field in 1969. Source: UFW

After this, the UFW started a new boycott against lettuce growers, while, after the expiration of the three-year contract, the Delano growers signed a new contract with another union making lesser demands. As a result of this, new strikes erupted in 1973, which were put down by the law enforcement by violent means. The UFW responded with another grape boycott and 17 million Americans boycotted Delano grapes. The UFW managed to cause huge profit losses to the grape business stakeholders from production to sales, which led to the enactment of a new law by the governor of California in 1975, which secured the right of farmworkers to unionize. Due to the pressure from the supermarkets, the growers did not oppose. The membership of the UFW had grown beyond 40,000 by the 1980s.

The growers, as a response, supported the campaign of an anti-union candidate in the 1982 governor's race in California, who won the election and repealed the union law. The UFW then started another boycott and launched a campaign against pesticides, which caused serious health problems to workers and their kids. In 1992, UFW activists managed to get the wage of grapepickers increased.

Chávez passed away in 1993. One of the campaigns of the UFW now is the enactment of the so-called AgJOBS Act, which would legalize the status of undocumented immigrants and open the path for them to permanent residency.


Viva La Causa: organizing principles of César Chávez

Activists demand wage increase
for tomato pickers in front of a
Taco Bell fast food restaurant.
Source: elenemigocomun.net

By the 1960s, the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement had been emerging. The Chicano Movement, which aimed for the elimination of discrimination against Mexican Americans, segregation at schools, economic exploitation, disdain of their culture and the need for meaningful political participation was strengthened by Chávez and his allies. The work of Chávez was based on the principles of non-violence, showed a strong religious pattern, and aimed for wide social cooperation. He thought the UFW would become strong against the agribusiness stakeholders if the members of the movement did not allow themselves to be pitted against one another along ethnicity and gender, and were able to build a wide support base.

Therefore, with women and Latino farmworkers, the movement had a lot of followers among students, the white middle-class, and the Latino working class. Chávez said, "If we nothing but farmworkers, we'd only have about 30 per cent of all the ideas that we have. There would be no cross-fertilization, no growing. It's beautiful to work with other groups, other ideas, and other customs." (2003: Dalton) This approach helped the movement gain national and international support in the frequently used boycott tactics.

Chávez went on hunger strikes and fasted several times throughout this lifetime. Masses and religious events closing the fasts meant a bonding among the members of the, ultimately, religious Mexican American movement. The first fasting took place in 1968 for the "purification of the union", when during the first five-year strike members started to lose faith in the non-violent tactics and started to become violent. The fasting was also a signal for the Catholic bishops, who were reluctant to stand by the poor and instead kept on acting as mediators between the workers and the growers. At the end of the 25-day fasting, Chávez organized a public mass, which was attended by more than 8,000 supporters, for example, by Senator Robert F. Kennedy, with whom he shared the communion. He went on a hunger strike against the Arizona law which banned strikes, and during the campaign against pesticides. The Catholicism of Chavez was rooted in liberation theology.

The UFW inspired and showed a perspective to several farmworker unions and organizations, for example, the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, who conducted a successful boycott against Taco Bell (fast food restaurant) between 2002-2005 for wage increases for tomato pickers in Florida; or the PCUN Oregon's Farmworker Union, which built its membership base through providing legal services and then transformed into a union. Many of PCUN's founding members graduated from the Colegio César Chávez, a popular school, named after Chávez and founded to provide education to Mexican Americans. Chávez had primary education and throughout his life, he was a self-learner. Barack Obama dedicated a monument to Chávez this October in San Francisco.

The American middle class organizes: the Sanctuary Movement in support of undocumented immigrants

Forrás: share-elsalvador.org

But how can you avoid being caught in the web of ICE if you are undocumented? You try to remain invisible. You don't go to a doctor if you are sick, you don't enroll into a school in case you are particularly vulnerable, you try to be inconspicuous, especially to the authorities. If there is a chance, you try to get at least temporary permits. And you try to find those who will employ you without a permit. In case of better-off immigrants, this may be a family enterprise, in case of the more vulnerable, this may be employers who hire undocumented people to make some extra profit. Forced labor, being bound by debt or wage theft or being a victim of sex slavery may also hide the oppressed from the authorities. Civil society organizations which advocate on behalf of or with the immigrants without endangering their stay in the country play a very important role. And the support of the society is also needed, whose members can provide help in everyday life, and give support in case of emergency to make the circumstances of immigrants livable. Initiatives (such as the Rural Organizing Project in Oregon), which aim for establishing welcoming communities, are therefore of great importance.

A good example for the outstanding support of the middle class is the Sanctuary Movement, which was a critical response of a part of the American society to the U.S. foreign policy in Central America in the 1980s. In the 1980s, due to the massacres and civil war in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and in El Salvador almost one million people sought refuge in the U.S.

Despite the fact that the actual U.S. administration aided those leaders who supported the neoliberal economic policy and the access of the American capital to these countries and who are liable for the death of the hundreds of thousands of people, the Reagan administration substantially restricted the asylum seekers in gaining refugee status. Gradually, a segment of the society became more and more aware of the consequences of the American foreign policy, and some of them started to take responsibility.

The religious Sanctuary Movement started to emerge in 1980. Several denominations took account of their faith and principles and first started to provide legal and financial aid to Central American asylum seekers who managed to cross the border. Then in 1982, John Fife, a Presbyterian minister in Arizona, declared that the church of his congregation is a sanctuary, justified by Biblical traditions. The posted banners said: "This is a Sanctuary for the Oppressed of Central America. Immigration: do not profane the Sanctuary of God." (wikipedia) Inspired by this, by 1985, congregations, non-religious organizations, families with almost 500 member-sites joined the movement. Besides the Bible, the movement was inspired by the Underground Railroad, which was a network of safe houses from the southern states of the U.S. to Canada, where fleeing slaves found safe haven in the 19th century. The network was built by the activists of the Abolitionist Movement.

The immigration office cracked down on the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s. Several leaders were sued, and some of them were indicted on smuggling charges. The movement gained public support, and the trials incited public outrage and demonstrations. Social pressure contributed to the fact that the federal government provided temporary protected status to Central American asylum seekers in the Immigration Act of 1990. (wikipedia)

It is the business of all of us

In Portland, Sarah, a member of the Oregon New Sanctuary Movement, Sarah allowed me to stay with her. Sarah worked at a local organization in Santa Marta, El Salvador in the early 2000s, where she became politicized. She works with several organizations in Oregon, and she builds the local group of the Oregon New Sanctuary Movement and the welcoming community in Portland as an activist. She often travels back to visit friends in El Salvador, to gain energy and courage, but she knows that her job is in the U.S.; this is the country where she can do the most to support social movements and immigrant justice.

In El Salvador, she said, people seem more politicized or politically aware, and that political discourse is more common among a wide range of people. In the community where she lived in particular – largely because of its long and rich history of struggle during the 1979-1992 Civil War, but also out of necessity – organizing for basic rights and self-determination is much more integrated into communal life.

The political action, community organizing and organizing for social change start in our everyday life.

Read Part 1 here.

Further literature: Frederick John Dalton: The Moral Vision of César Chávez. Maryknoll, New York, 2003. Lynn Stephen: The Story of PCUN and the Farmworker Movement in Oregon. University of Oregon. Eugene, 2012. Ganz Marshall: Why David Sometimes Wins. In: David M. Messick and Roderick M. Kramer: The Psychology of Leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2005, pp. 209-238.
Documentary film: Chicano! History of the Mexican American Civil Rights Movement - Part 2: The Struggle in the Fields. PBS Documentary, 1996.

Read it in Hungarian.

Who gains admission and who counts white? - Immigrants organize now and then (Part 1)

Strike! Source: UFW.

Back in August in Portland I committed a minor traffic infraction and unlucky me, there was a police officer on the spot who stopped me. I didn't have an international driver's license, he did not accept my Hungarian license, and he fined me. So I went to the local DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) in order to settle my status, and I did not have my immigration card on me, which would have verified that I was legally in the country. A few months earlier I had applied for the extension of my visa and carelessly, I did not attach the new card into my passport. Even though I was flaunting the printed email which proved the visa renewal process, in their eyes I could have been an undocumented immigrant.

In the U.S. it is not unusual that people in similar situations end up in detention facilities. In line with the continuously harshening immigration laws, in 2008, Secure Communities, a very controversial immigration program, started and this made the procedure with undocumented immigrants more severe. This whole issue made me think about whether any police officer would have let me go without checking my passport and my immigrant status if I had not been a white person with good English and a pretty decent appearance. This post is about immigrants and immigrant community organizers who put their body on the line risking even deportation to secure their rights.

Who gains admission and who counts white?

In 2010, 40.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S. (Pew), more than half of whom being Mexican. Significant numbers of people arrive also from China, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and South Korea, and from Central America (El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala) (CIS).

11.2 million of them are estimated to be undocumented immigrants (2011: Pew), more than half of whom being Mexican (2011: Pew). Approximately 1 million of them arrive as a child with their parents (2011: Pew). Out of these 11.2 million people, 6-7 million cross the border illegally, through human smuggling (2006: Pew), another 4-6 million overstay their visa after the time of admission has expired (2011: CIS), and approximately 250-500,000 people enter using their Border Crossing Card which authorizes visits to the border areas for a set amount of time (2006: Pew).

In the last decade the number of deportations doubled, and the majority of the deported were Mexicans, 70 percent in 2009 (2011: Pew). In 2010, 400,000 people were deported (2011: CIS).

A Filipino on strike in 1966.
Source: Reuther

In the history of the U.S., where everybody is an immigrant (which is essentially true for Europe, too...), the state became concerned with determining eligibility for citizenship after it had broken free from the British hegemony. From 1790 until a little after the end of the American Civil War (1868), citizenship was designated to "free white persons" of "good moral character". "Whiteness" however, has always been a political category: in the beginning of the 20th century, for example, neither the Irish nor the Jews nor the Slavs were considered to be white.

The Fourteenth Amendment eventually proclaimed in 1868 that regardless of the race of the parents, their citizenship and place of birth, those who were born in the United States are entitled to become citizens, and this right was extended in 1870 to African-Americans who had formerly been slaves. This right to citizenship was, however, denied to Native Americans, some of whom first became citizens in 1890, until finally this right was extended to all Native Americans in 1924. Moreover, Chinese immigrants, who started to migrate to the U.S. at the second half of the 19th century, were excluded from the right to become citizens in 1882 (Chinese Exclusion Act). Racial discrimination in gaining citizenship was eventually abolished with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

There were practically no legal restrictions on immigration to the U.S. until 1875. People from different nations arrived in different periods with significantly different social and financial background (primarily, the Spanish, the English, the French, the Germans, the Dutch, people from other countries from Northwestern Europe, and the African slaves, then Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europeans, Italians, Greeks, Russians, and Asians, Latin-Americans, Africans). The connections between these nations and their prevailing power relations over the course of history made an impact on the American immigration legislation.

The first two immigration laws were the Page Act of 1875 followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which restricted and banned the immigration of Chinese workers based on ethnicity. The ban was abolished only in 1943. The Immigration Act of 1924 essentially restricted the entry of Central and Eastern Europeans by limiting the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2 percent of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States (Canadians, Latin Americans and Caribbeans were exempt from the quota system). The national-origin quota was repealed in 1965, and the new law focused on skills and family connections in the U.S. This was a significant paradigm change compared to the overtly or covertly racist immigration legislation.

A new significant milestone in the changing attitude and policy of the government towards immigrants was the Illegal Immigration Act of 1996, which imposed stricter sanctions against immigrants unlawfully present in the country and extended the possibility of deportations. So far this law provides the basis for the current U.S. immigration policy.

Under procedure in a detention facility.
Source: findingdulcinea.com

At the same time, the U.S. granted amnesty to undocumented immigrants several times. In 1940, for example, during WWII for security reasons in order to control and oppress any activities aiming against the state or the prevailing state ideology, the status of several million people, mostly of European origin were legalized (Alien Registry Act of 1940). In 1986, the Reagan administration legalized the status of approximately 3 million people, mostly Latin-American and Asian immigrant farmworkers, and those who settled down in the U.S. before 1982. And now, the most recent beam of hope for young immigrants is the DREAM Act, which would open the avenue to gain citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are under the age of 30, graduated from high school and obtain a college degree or complete two years of military service within six years.

Who does NOT get caught in the control mechanism of the immigration office?

These measures were accompanied by a more severe border protection and immigration control mechanism, which were in line with national security measures after 2001. In 2005, for example, the federal government determined the process (Real ID Act) of how local DMVs issue a driver's license and other personal identification documents (until then the system was not centralized). As a result, every DMV in each state of the whole country needs to request the immigration documents in case of a non-American citizen (that's the reason why I was asked for my immigration card which I did not have on me), and are obliged to store and to some extent share the data of the clients with other authorities.

Source: cnn.com

The other recent measure in 2008 was the already mentioned Secure Communities program, which determines that data and fingerprints of arrestees are submitted not only to the FBI but also to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The automated system indicates to ICE when the detainee is an immigrant, where officers evaluate the case and can request further detention in case they want to start a procedure against the detainee. The officially declared aim of the program is to identify those detainees who are eligible for deportation according to current immigration laws, that is, those who were convicted of a crime, and to assess these cases based on the level of crime, and at the same time only to deport those who committed serious crimes such as homicide, robbery, kidnapping, major drug offenses, or those who impose a threat to national security. But despite Secure Communities’ stated priorities, many of the undocumented immigrants detained and deported via the program have never been convicted of any crime. The possibility of racial discrimination and an avenue to anti-immigrant sentiments are inherently encoded into the implementation of such a program, as it gives opportunity for law enforcement officers to pick and check "immigrant-like" people (Latin Americans, Asians).

While according to the statistics, in 2011, 26 percent of the deported people committed the above listed serious crimes, another 29 percent were deported for misdemeanors and lesser crimes, and another 26 percent were deported for not having committed any crime, but who were undocumented (IPC), and who were, for instance, arrested because of driving without a license, burned-out tail lights or speeding. Take the case of Emiliano Rojas, who was immediately asked for his immigration papers by the police officer in 2010 when he committed a minor traffic infraction. He did not have proper documents, so the police officer did not let him go away, saying that the car Emiliano had been driving was in the name of his father. When his father, Claudio, who was also undocumented, arrived to help his son out, both of them were arrested and detained.

This made me think that if any police officer had wanted to see my passport and had realized that I cannot prove my legal status on the spot, would have I gotten arrested? In that case, would he or she have found it suspicious that the car I was driving was not mine? Naturally, I would have been cleared within foreseeable time that I am legally in the country, and obviously nobody would have wanted to deport me, but the fair treatment, which everybody would deserve, saved me from getting in closer acquaintance with the American detention facilities. Not like the Rojas family, where the boy was let go after three months of detention, but the father was ordered to leave the country. Neither of them had any criminal record. Despite the sentence, Claudio, however, had decided to stay in the country with his family, until the ICE caught him two years later and imprisoned him again and ordered the deportation. The case became famous because Claudio started a hunger strike this August and the DREAM activists protested for him.

Lower-middle class undocumented immigrants organize: the DREAM activists

Source: cleveland.com

The DREAMers got their name after the bill known as the DREAM Act (Development, Relief, Education for Alien Minors). These young people have been living in the U.S. undocumented for many years, they once left the country of their birth with their immigrant parents. They grew up without proper documents, with the support of their family, they attended high school, they are firmly rooted in the U.S.

Currently, approximately one million children live undocumented in the U.S. The DREAM Act offers permanent residency to young people under the age of 30, which would later open a path for them to apply for citizenship. Those are eligible for the benefits who came before the age of 16 and have been living here for more than five consecutive years, and who within six years get a college degree, or complete at least two years at a college or complete a two-year military service.

The DREAMers, who started the movement in 2007, protested for Claudio Rojas because they knew that there are other people like him unjustly detained despite the fact that the ICE announced in June 2011 (Morton Memo, prosecutorial discretion) that "low-priority" undocumented immigrants who impose no threat to national security should be protected from detention or deportation. ICE requested to review their cases, and declared that they will not use their resources any further to deport these immigrants. In order to prove that ICE was not fulfilling its promise, and to collect evidence that that there are immigrants kept in detention facilities who would be eligible for the DREAM Act, the young immigrants launched an action: by pretending to be uninformed undocumented immigrants, they got themselves arrested in order to infiltrate the immigrant detention facilities and collect evidence about how many people are unjustly detained. Their action gained huge media coverage.

They demanded the release of Claudio Rojas and other immigrants in situations similar to his and requested that the deportation procedures of these immigrants be stopped. They sent video messages about themselves and their own stories, and about how the DREAM Act would change their lives. They published their personal stories on their website. The bill was introduced in 2001 and is awaiting the decision of Congress. The presidency of Barack Obama has not brought the expected breakthrough. Therefore, the DREAMers, exploiting media attention around the presidential election, organized sit-ins in many states, and demanded that President Obama should use his executive authority to cease the deportations of DREAM Act eligible youth, then protested at the National Democratic Convention. This August, as a reply to the organizing of the activists and under the pressure of the presidential election campaign, Obama introduced a "deferred action" (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) for DREAM Act eligible youth. The measure ceases deportation for two years for those, who are under the age of 31, came to the country before the age of 16, have been living here for at least five consecutive years, are in school, already graduated from high school or completed a two-year military service, and have no criminal records. They can apply for a work permit, but this is not a path to receive citizenship. These are the latest developments of the issue and the results of the presidential election will probably bring substantial changes.

Part 2 (next week)
Working-class undocumented immigrants organize: César Chávez and the non-violent movement of farmworkers and their unions

The American middle class organizes: the Sanctuary Movement in support of undocumented immigrants

Further literature: Walter A. Ewing: Opportunity and Exclusion: A Brief History of U.S. Immigration Policy. Immigration Policy Center, 2012.

Read it in Hungarian.

We support our neighbors and protect one another from foreclosure!

Don't move out!
We support our neighbors.

I was heading to the bus stop the other day when I recognized this sign on the left: "Don't move out! We support our neighbors". Seemingly, residents of this neighborhood in Portland, Oregon came round to the fact that the value of their property is inherently affected by the foreclosure of their neighbors' house - when the number of vacant buildings with boarded-up windows starts to increase, it will eventually lead to the devaluation of property in the neighborhood. There are lots of examples for such neighborhoods in big cities as well as smaller towns in the U.S. But what makes this sign genuine?

I spent the last few days with the Rural Organizing Project (ROP). It has democracy and civic participation, immigration fairness, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) justice, economic justice and the cost of war on its agenda. ROP is not primarily campaign-driven but focuses instead on building the infrastructure of the organization through engaging people in different ways. Its organizing model builds on neighborhood networks, and its primary target is to build trust among community members and make them more and more politicized.

One of its main tools is peer-learning about issues which are crucial to the community. In order to do this, for example, community members hold regular get-togethers in their homes to discuss social issues (living room conversations, kitchen table activism). The invitation to the event comes from a neighbor instead of the organization, and it is just icing on the cake when, in the end, participants get involved in at least a low-stake action (calling a legislator, signing a petition, etc.). Mobilization is not the ultimate goal of a living room conversation, but it is definitely done to help people problem solve a tough topic of the moment and talk about it in a political context. The role of ROP is to build the capacity of - and strengthen - these communities. These autonomous community groups work with the issues of the organization and may also get involved in ROP campaigns or in the activities of ROP allies. The primary focus of the organization, however, is trust and relationship-building in the community and at the same time, their politicization.

A lot of thoughts came into my mind when I was pondering this model. First of all, the heart of my organization model is campaigning. Real change usually requires a series of consistent, creative actions which challenges the decision-maker and makes it straightforward that people, even with different social statuses, are ready to move together and implement all available democratic tools to achieve their goals. Based on my experience, people learn most and get politicized more easily by participating in an action: when preparation takes into account how to frame the issue, how people have a specific role, and what is at stake.

And then I was thinking how many times I heard how important personal relationships are in organizing. Trust is also essential for a consistent campaign, because without a strong and inspiring community, people will be reluctant to step out of their comfort zones, that is, use tactics which they were reluctant to use earlier. Or in other words, their understanding and anger reach a level which makes them ready to increase the stakes. To be able to fundamentally challenge decision-makers (to escalate a campaign), this is a must.

For a campaign-driven organization, however, it is often challenging to focus on base-building. Base-building requires a totally different type of work and attention, where the emphasis is on agitating and building relationships with more and more people. The model of ROP, which focuses on base-building through political education and low-stake actions instead of campaigning, links up a supporter and activist base with organizations working with the same issues. Maybe members of the neighborhood in the picture above, where the community promises support to those whose homes have been foreclosed, entered the public arena after they had been for long talking about social issues more honestly and in a more organized manner.

Thanks for the conversations for Marcy Westerling, Amanda Aguilar Shank, Sarah Loose and Cara Shufelt.

Read it in Hungarian.

The impact of community organizations on party politics

Voter registration drive.
Source: Planned Parenthood

In Hungary, it does not often happen that non-profit organizations would encourage their constituencies to participate in elections. In the United States, however, it is a very widespread activity. If they wish to vote, citizens of each state except North Dakota have to register themselves before (or in some states, on the same day of) the election. Before major elections, non-profit organizations, especially the majority of community organizations, run voter registration drives to increase civic engagement, mainly for constituencies who have been historically underrepresented at the polls.

Activists do door-to-door canvassing in neighborhoods, or go to universities, churches, or talk to people standing at bus stops and have them fill out their voter registration forms, which activists collect and submit to voter registration officials. The approach, commonly referred to as "civic engagement", is a strategic opportunity to involve new people and raise awareness. In Hungary, for example, The City Is For All made an attempt to use this tool among homeless citizens before the 2010 elections.

Naturally, it is against the law that organizers and their non-profit organizations agitate people to vote for a specific party or a political candidate, but in an indirect way (and mostly due to the two-party system), they may have an impact on the outcome of the elections. There are usually overlaps between the agenda of community organizations and that of the Democratic Party, so these organizations will more likely register potential Democratic voters.

It was not accidental that the very influential Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) received a lot of accusations before the 2008 presidential election. They were accused of forgery of voter registration forms because those who lost the election felt that their work registering voters contributed to the victory of President Barack Obama. (The charges helped lead to the downfall of the organization.)

Due to the overlaps, several community organizations purposefully build on potential Democratic voters in recruiting more members or in increasing the number of supporters for a campaign. For example, it is a widespread practice for community organizations to gain access to a public voter database (with a lot of information such as name, phone number, address, gender, age, voting history), which a vendor has merged with commercially obtained data to create a more comprehensive database. The program generates a list based on the needs of the customer, which (besides political organizations and corporations,) non-profit organizations also use as a source for phone banking: they call hundreds of people and urge them to register to vote, to support a cause, to call an elected official or to become a member.

American tax-exempt non-profit organizations come in a variety of shapes, sizes and forms. Even groups that are non-partisan have figured out ways to be effective in lobbying, as well as electoral politics, through voter registration, voter education and get-out-the-vote efforts, based on the issues that are important to their members. Organizations have also built relationships with key people in non-profits that are more actively engaged in political campaigns (because they have a different tax status).  A creative example of how this is done in Montana is reflected in the work of two groups, the Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRC), a community organization fighting for the rights of farmers and ranchers, for clean water and healthy food in Montana and a lobby group, the Montana League of Rural Voters (MLRV).

Read it in Hungarian.

We are the 99 per cent! - or confrontational rural organizing is possible

"We are here and we do not go anywhere."
CCI's Latino Organizing Project
steering committee. Source: FB

I have heard several times from community organizers that it is close to impossible to organize in a confrontational manner in small towns or rural areas. It is possible in Chicago, many say with some exaggeration, but here, where there is no tradition of open conflict among citizens and decision-makers, this does just not work. In rural areas, some organizers say, you cut your organization off from both your members and politicians if you take a confrontational stance. Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (Iowa CCI) shatters this myth. The organization militantly fights against factory farms, for immigrant rights and for a fair economy. Executive Director Hugh Espey and Organizer David Goodner talk about their methods.


Last year you took part in the Occupy movement in New York City and in Iowa. Nation-wide campaigns continue: together with other organizations, you mobilize people to divest from irresponsible banks such as Wells Fargo and Bank of America, which can be made liable for the recession, and urge citizens to put their dollars into smaller banks who reinvest into the community. How do you assess the Occupy movement?

Hugh: Occupy lifted up the notion that most of us belong to the 99 per cent. "We are the 99 percent," says the slogan. This movement made the huge income inequalities obvious and made it common sense that the richest 1 per cent pays less in taxes in proportion to their income and that corporations have a huge influence on our politics and the government. We don't want this energy to be gone. In order for this, in the spring, National People's Action started The 99% Spring program. The building of the movement started with nation-wide leadership development. Thousands of people have already participated in the online trainings. We think that the Occupy is not over yet.

On July 19 you demanded the resignation of two agricultural investors, Brent and Bruce Rastetter. Although it was not meant to be like that, still, the second half of the action could have been a neat antiglob action: ultimately, you stood up for the rights of Burundian refugees in Tanzania against an American investor in the United States.


David: There are, in fact, multiple strands in these two issues. Factory farms have swept off tons of family farms from the market and caused a lot of environmental damages in Iowa. In the first half of the action, we packed the meeting room of Iowa's Department of Natural Resources. Our members, farmers or residents of neighborhoods affected by the environmental damages, took the floor one after the other, and claimed that the commission should deny permission for a new factory farm in Poweshiek County. They criticized factory farms with harsh words and with a variety of arguments, and they spoke from their hearts. All of them demanded the resignation of Brent Rastetter, who was having extremely unpleasant moments at the commission's table. Brent, who is a factory farmer, is a member of the Environmental Protection Commission, which should oversee the compliance with environmental regulations.

Then we went to the Iowa Ethics and Complaint Disclosure Board to file a complaint against his brother, Bruce Rastetter, who used his position in the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa, an institute overseeing public educational institutions in Iowa, to start a monoculture factory farming in Tanzania - on land where refugees from Burundi have lived for decades and who were relocated by the Tanzanian government without a question. As a closing accord, we filled the governor's office, since he nominates the Board of Regents, and demanded the dismissal of Rastetter due to conflict of interest.

You stopped the construction of nearly 100 factory farms, hurting the interests of many business people. The atmosphere of the organizing meetings and the staff meetings reflects that you, as paid employees of CCI, are not kidding and the militant style is infectious to your members. How do you realize this in a fundamentally rural environment?


Hugh: I think the most important thing is that it is part of our strategy that we leave no stone unturned. We never give in and almost never make a compromise and we harass the decision-makers until they fulfill our demands. If necessary, we protest in front of their homes, send a greeting card with our campaign message to their mother, disrupt their businesses and picket in front of their auto car wash. Naturally, we have been told that it is an intrusion into privacy but we think that if somebody does not want to meet us or consider our interests, we need to overstep a boundary. As a result of this, those who are affected by the issues we deal with start to develop trust in us.

There is something in many people which blocks them from expressing their opinion in public. We have learned that decision-makers are clever and they know what they do. How many times have we heard that "He is the mayor. He knows better." Or from the mayor that "You are not aware of what challenges I have to face." Our belief in the superiority of decision-makers must be dismissed because this is what keeps the incompetent in power. People have to give permission to themselves that they announce their opinion if they feel so. They have to allow themselves to be angry and speak from their heart. We have to make the decision-makers accountable. The other big challenge is that there are people who think that cooperation is a sign of weakness. We faced several times when a farmer proudly says, "I can solve my own problem, I don't need anybody's help." We have to dismiss this notion, because we have more power together. For this, the energy, impulse and enthusiasm of a community organizer is necessary.

What are the main characteristics of rural organizing?


David: I think one of them is that we fill a niche. There are not many advocacy groups in the rural areas. We are the ones who get a place at the table of decision-makers for rural people and their issues. The technological lag between rural and urban areas (e.g., the lack of internet) also makes it harder for the community organizer. It is also important that we frame our messages in a way that it tells something to the decision-makers, to the public and to the people affected. We frame our messages in the language of the local people, based on their values. We talk a lot about equality. We lay great stress on leadership development, we form steering committees, we talk through strategies with our members, and we are slowly giving them more and more responsibility. It is inspiring for the community if community members speak up and in a confrontational manner if needed, therefore we need to position the leaders so that they can show their power. Naturally, debriefings are crucial at the end of the meetings. And last but not least, it is important that we have fun!

If somebody comes to us with an issue then we ask them to mobilize other people affected. Last time we received a call from Floyd County that the construction of a factory farm is being planned. It will destroy local family farms, so we should help prevent it. "Can you bring 15-20 other people affected to a meeting?" we asked. Yes, he could. For building the organization, it is also important that these people become CCI members. If we invest in the community, we want the community to invest in us, too. Continuously keeping in touch is also important, but because of the great distance it is more likely that we keep in touch on the phone.

You work with a lot of interest groups, from the immigrants and farmers to those whose homes are in foreclosure. How do you bridge the possible inner conflicts, how do you bring them to a common platform?


David: First of all, the notion that we belong to the same organization is a glue. We have not had such a campaign which could have lined up all the different interest groups at once. Statewide meetings give space for members to get to know one another and to listen to one another's stories. It also happened that Latinos spoke up for clean air at an action organized by farmers. These examples obviously increase solidarity.

Read it in Hungarian.

A blink to India: "Social activism is like “onion-peeling” - you successfully peel one layer, but then comes another one."

Source: Navsarjan

Martin Macwan, an Indian lawyer and activist, is the founder of Navsarjan, a grassroots Dalit organisation, based in Gujarat state, India. Being a Dalit himself, he learnt the hard way as a child what caste discrimination means. Dalits, the former "untouchables" in pre-independence India, make up around 166 million of those living in the country, and together with other disadvantaged groups they make up more than 24 per cent of the total population. They are subject to discrimination in numerous fields of society, such as jurisdiction, housing, education or employment.

(The full article is available on the website of MRG's Minority Voices Newsroom.)

You had been working as a lawyer and a human rights defender for eight years before the foundation of Navsarjan. What inspired you to start in a new direction and establish a community-based organisation?
Martin: The events which triggered this were grievous. In the 1980s, I was running a land rights campaign with another organisation. We tried to change the land ownership structure: to liberate land held captive by landlords and to give them back to the people for their use. In fact, we were challenging the power of dominant-caste landlords. Shortly, they realised that if this were to continue, they would lose all their privileges. This infuriated them and, on the 25th January 1986, they ran a massive attack on one of the village communities. I had left the village not long before that, but I was supposed to be there that night. Many people were wounded, houses were burnt and four of my colleagues were shot dead. It was total chaos.

This was the moment when my life took a new turn. I realised that if I wanted to provide the solutions to a systemic problem, and because discrimination was such, I needed to create a broad-based organisation, otherwise each activity would remain an isolated attempt and would put people at risk. After we had filed a lawsuit against the perpetrators, I left the organisation with these thoughts and founded Navsarjan in December 1988. The legal battle had been going on for thirteen years when, eventually, fourteen people were sentenced.

India produced a progressive Constitution in 1950, enshrining the policy of affirmative action for underprivileged groups, and passed many laws that are supposed to aid the inclusion of Dalits and other disadvantaged tribes and classes into society. However, it failed to live up to expectations. What was the reality in the villages in the 1990s?
Martin: What we saw then and what we still see are segregated housing colonies for Dalits, who are treated like slaves by local landlords, who are prohibited from using public services and starting private businesses. Dalit people, especially in villages, are segregated in schools and have access to poorer medical facilities.

In 1989, we started with eight volunteers and opened a legal cell offering services for approximately 50 villages. Listening to the local Dalits, however, we realised that the core of all the cases in the district can be derived back to the improper dissemination of water. It is a common problem all over India: Dalits are either forbidden from using the water sources and toilet tanks used by non-Dalits or they are the last in the row to fetch water. It was the same story here, too: in 1991, Dalits were allowed to fetch water after the buffalos had had enough.

So, instead of taking case after case and continuing to merely fire-fight, we shut the office down and conducted a comprehensive survey. We found that in 42 out of 50 villages, access to water was a problem. No sooner had we assembled the evidence than we started to organise all the village-dwellers.

Not surprisingly, women were more sensitive to the issue, because it was their task to fetch water. A year later, we organised an impressive march in which 800 women advanced with a large jar on their heads. This massive amount of people demanding change created such a problem that the administration was forced to solve the water issue in all of the 42 villages. It is ultimately a question of power equation: when you are perceived as weak, they don't listen to you. And fear is an enormous problem. There are millions of people suffering, but they do not dare to stand up for their rights because they feel that they are alone.

Nevertheless, within 10 years of activities, Navsarjan has had local representation in 2 000 villages. Today it is present in more than 3 000.
Martin: We wanted to become a broad-based organisation. For this you need a lot of empowered and passionate people, but you also need responsible leaders who feel ownership for the community and their problems. First we employed non-local, qualified leaders, but that did not work. When they got a better opportunity, they left. At this point, we decided to train local, uneducated young men and women to be leaders. We trained them for three days per month for one year and they were granted a small amount of fellowship. However, even in this case, just to be able to participate in our trainings, women had to jump higher hurdles than men. Until they got familiar with the programme, village people were accusing female participants of being prostitutes, because they spent nights away in the company of unknown people. Women were persistent and their attitude helped me understand that without women no social movement will succeed.

Navsarjan grants women a special role in the fight against caste discrimination.
Martin: We work with both men and women, but, as years of work were passing by, we realised that we can address gender-based discrimination only if we placed women in a leadership position in the social movement. Women face multiple discrimination: once from non-Dalits due to their caste status and once from Dalits and non-Dalits because of their gender. Dalit women are more likely to suffer violence and especially sexual violence, and are least likely to get redress in the courts. They will likely face ostracism from their community or even from their own family.

Accepting gender equality is a long battle everywhere and changes start from small things. When I suggested in the main office that the men should wash their own dishes, it caused such uproar that five men left the organisation without a word. They just left a message at the gatekeeper saying: "We are men. We would sooner die than do a woman's job."

Originally, the "teapot revolution" against the undesirable role of women as kitchen servants was sparked off by two female participants from our vocational training. In DSK, participants primarily acquire a profession, but the training also provides personality development, communication and leadership skills, education on human rights and social equality. The rationale behind this is that after returning to their villages, participants will be able to stand up for the rights of their community.

Based on the concept of equality, these two women started to question the traditional roles in their community. When they were supposed to wash the teapot and the dirty cups after a local meeting of the movement, they instigated other women and together they refused to do so. It was like a bombshell, as nobody was expecting anything like that. The male members were foaming at the mouth: men and women did not talk to each other for weeks. After two months I called the leader and said: "You know, I am trying to set up a museum for Dalit history. Can I get a teapot from your office." The man did not understand: "What is it to do with a pot in a museum?" I said, "I want to write the story of the inequality between Dalit men and women and I need the pot as an illustration." The man then went and washed the pot and the story spread like wildfire to 40 other offices of Navsarjan and all the women started to protest: "If we prepare the tea, men should wash the pot". This would not have been possible if only men had been in the organisation.

You resigned from Navsarjan 6 years ago. What are you currently involved in?
Martin: After completing 25 years in the movement, I was convinced that the leadership must change. A social movement needs new blood to bring in new ideas. Nevertheless, I remained part of the organisation, but in another role, as an activist. I am training teachers in our primary school programme and conducting trainings on gender relationships, power and community in the DSK trainings for 1 000 young men and women annually. When they come here, they can hardly say their names. When they go back to their villages, they can become leaders. Apart from that, I am writing textbooks used by the 30 000 children participating in our primary school programme.

Apart from Navsarjan, my colleagues and I set up two institutions after the World Conference against Racism of 2001 in Durban. I am a founding member of and was previously the chair of the organisation called the Dalit Foundation and I am the current chair of the Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, a national research institute solely dedicated to the issue of caste discrimination. And naturally, there are lots of other organisations where I am invited to conduct trainings.

Dr. Ambedkar, the "father of the Indian Constitution", set the cornerstone for the Dalit movement. He is an emblematic figure in your organisation as well, as his portrait is placed above the front door of the training centre.
Martin: Dr. Ambedkar carried forward the tradition of Jyotirao Phule and his wife, Savitribai Phule, social reformers from the 19th century. Jyotirao worked a lot for the removal of untouchability and probably he was the one who first used the term Dalit instead of the "untouchables". Dr. Ambedkar put the issue of the caste system into the context of the national politics and no one has studied the caste system with the depth that he did. He also learnt the hard way, as a child, what caste discrimination means. He was the only Dalit child in his primary school and he was forbidden by the teacher to sit on a chair: he was told to sit on his bag on the ground. This is still a common method for the humiliation of a Dalit person. In 2006, a Dalit Panchayat leader, a village body head in Bihar, was abused for daring to sit on a chair in a meeting.

Every Dalit village-dweller greets you with the conventional "Jai Bhim", meaning Victory to Bhim, i.e. to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar. However, blank faces will stare back if you pose a few questions about his achievements and it is because he is not included in the curriculum. We produced two books on his life, one for the children and one for the youth, and we disseminate them to our local libraries. But it is not as simple as it sounds. Children say that library volunteers do not do their duty: they are absent or they lock the books away because they are afraid that the books will be stolen. This is the mechanism of social activism: it is like “onion-peeling” - you successfully peel one layer, but then comes another one.

A shorter version of the article has been published in the 2011/19. issue of HVG, a Hungarian economic weekly.

Healthy food at an affordable price for all

Community garden in Louisville

Fresh Stop is a community-supported agricultural program run by the non-profit organization New Roots in Louisville, Kentucky. New Roots's mission is to build a just and thriving food system in the Ohio River Valley region. They do this through their Fresh Stop Model, which trains leaders residing in low-income neighborhoods to provide their neighbors with access to fresh, local and healthy food. The head of the project, Karyn Moskowitz, organizes for food justice.

What is the New Roots Fresh Stop model like?

Karyn: We adopted the model from an organization in Cleveland, called City Fresh, and tailored it to our own needs. The basic concept is that families, based on their income, pool their money and pay an amount of $12-$25 one week in advance to local farmers and in return receive fresh, healthy vegetables. Families decide for themselves how much they can afford to pay, and no one is turned away for lack of money or food stamps. Pooling their money enables the families to pay wholesale prices, which makes the food affordable for everyone. Farmers have not been enthusiastic to start or maintain farmers markets in low-income neighborhoods in Louisville. By pooling their money and guaranteeing payment, risk is eliminated for both eaters and farmers. Farmers simply drop the produce off and volunteers do the rest. Fresh Stops average 50-80 families per week or every other week. Families don't know in advance what vegetables will be delivered, but are assured of a beautiful bounty of whatever is in season. In 2012, New Roots has three churches who contribute their buildings to be the fresh food drop point. Volunteers come to the site to meet the farmers' trucks and to count and sort the produce. Each family gets an equal amount of what is delivered, i.e., two eggplants, five tomatoes, etc.

What is the self-interest of the farmers and the community?

Karyn: Farmers can be sure that their products will be sold that week, while community members receive fresh vegetables at an affordable price. But it needs a lot of organizing to make the supply and the demand meet. Earlier, farmers tried to set up markets in low-income neighborhoods, with little success. It was never a viable business as the demand was always too low. Therefore, we had to bargain with the farmers on the amount of money they want to see in advance which would make their participation worth it. The challenge for low-income people is to switch to buying fresh food which needs to be cooked from scratch. Prices are often lower than at supermarkets and much of the produce is chemical free and picked that day, so the taste is delicious. The $12 low-income shares must be balanced with a small percentage of higher-income $25 shares so that there is enough money to collectively buy a large amount of produce. Families only have to dedicate themselves to paying one week in advance, unlike other community-supported agricultural projects which require a large payment at the beginning of the growing season.

What kind of programs are linked to the Fresh Stop model?

Karyn: We hold community workshops about food sovereignty based on the popular education model, distribute recipes in the market, organize cooking workshops, and inform community members in a newsletter. Community members are involved in work groups: folks are responsible to put together the newsletter, collect the weekly amount of money, organize educational workshops or do the media work. I extend the network with new neighborhoods by interviewing several people who know the community well, like a pastor, and I follow up on their contacts and inform people about the program. New Roots is more than the distribution of healthy food. We want to recreate the food system, we want to create a food community.

Read it in Hungarian.

Organizing against coal companies in forgotten Eastern Kentucky

Eastern Kentucky is one of the poorest regions of the U.S., where 27 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. Coal mining has been going on for decades, while the struggles of the miners and the local community have been revived again and again against the exploitation. (A documentary called Harlan County, USA filmed the miners’ strike of 1973; and in 1981, the group Kentuckians For The Commonwealth was founded to offset the coal companies.) Even though the million-dollar coal business still employs a significant part of the local population, it takes away more than it contributes to the life of Eastern Kentucky. Poverty is the biggest in areas where coal mining is ongoing. Coal is a strong form of identity - there have been coal miners in essentially every family many generations back. Despite this, many people raise their voices and protest against the most devastating form of strip mining, mountain top removal, which has already led to the destruction of approximately 500 mountain tops in Central Appalachia.

We are driving in Floyd County, in the heart of the Appalachian mountains, to test the water of streams polluted by strip mining. The closest biggest town has a population of only 3,000. We are passing by a small settlement, David, which received its name from David L. Francis, the President of Princess Elkhorn Coal Company, who built this place for his workers and owned it for a while. 29 percent of Floyd County lives below the poverty line. The landscape very much reminds me of the Carpathians in Transylvania, Romania, where the community of Rosia Montana (Verespatak) has actually been struggling against cyanide gold mining and strip mining.

We are stopping by at a small plot of land. An old man is coming out of his cabin, his bandana displays the bald eagle, the symbol of the country. Chickens are running around the cabin, the little grassy area is embraced by thick bushes and tall trees. The nature has lustfully overgrown the area, leaving a bit for the old man, which he modestly occupied. It turns out that the stream flowing in his backyard is polluted. In the last couple of years, 10 percent of Central Appalachia, approximately 500 mountain tops, has been exploded to extract coal from its depth.

Any form of strip mining causes significant harm to the environment because the surface vegetation has to be removed, the soil is scalped by bulldozers, then the exposed overburden is moved leaving the bald mountain behind so that the mineral can be extracted. In the end, a big hole remains, into which the overburden is backfilled and may be covered by topsoil. The most devastating form of strip mining is the mountain top removal method when the mountain top is actually removed by explosives. The exploded poisonous overburden is filled into adjacent valleys, often by burying streams. The devastated plants and soil do not absorb rain water any more, exposing houses to flooding. Companies find loopholes in the environmental regulations or simply do not comply with the rules, and the Environmental Protection Agency is too weak to make them accountable.

Jeff Chapman-Crane: The Agony of Gaia
Source: KFTC

Kentuckians For The Commonwealth (KFTC) organizes in several ways to offset the destruction of the region. The campaign is a multi-faceted: KFTC organizes the community at a local level and raises awareness in the whole state about this unfairly ignored issue (e.g., urges authors, musicians, painters to make the issue more visible; organizes witness tours with the involvement of local people to expose the destruction; carries out water-tests), they want to achieve changes in the regulations (e.g., against burying the streams), and to implement the current laws (e.g., to review company permits and to ensure the compliance of mining with regulations).

Agitation is not easy in the closed communities of Appalachia, which relate to coal mining through numerous ways, says Kristi Kendall, KFTC's community organizer living in the region. Kristi often runs into folks who yielded to the coal companies and are not ready to act. Through the decades, they have learned that the companies can easily retaliate, so they had better not raise their voice, because one of their relatives or acquaintance works for the coal company. One of the features of rural organizing is that people are often tied by web of close relatives. Even if they do not agree with the mountain top removal and its effects on the community, they do not come to a meeting or a protest, because their neighbors or relatives would frown upon them. Kristi had to face becoming an outsider in her own community and to confront the disapproval of her own family for taking an active role in the fight.

We are walking up the hill to have a view of the mutilated mountain. We are at the end of an abandoned, gravel road: in the middle of the living mountain there is a huge, bald spot and the crippled part is covered by a thin layer of grass. More than 500 such plateaus are located in Appalachia. It is legally binding for the companies to reclaim the land, so under this label, golf courses, a prison, airplane runways and Wal-Marts have been built and real estate investors have experimented with constructing luxury homes.

A local fellow has driven up to us in his four-wheeler. He belongs to the nearby estate where probably three or four families live in their dwellings. He was curious about what we are doing.

"What do you think about the mountain top removal?," I asked.

He thinks there has been no problem. He will start working in the mine from the fall, just like his father did. Local folks do not usually ask questions about the mountain top removal. Strip mining is a taboo, nobody needs unnecessary fights.

Read it in Hungarian.