Fernando gives his reaction to the mayor’s most recent statement of support for the farm. He also discusses some of the ongoing efforts to save the farm and what people can do to help.

The leadership of the South Central Farm:

-talk DOWN TO the farmers

-are condescending to the families who work the farm

-are bossy and undemocratic

-are top-down, and lack any kind of consensus decision-making process

-lack effective strategy--which never changes, because only a couple of people are making all the decisions

-keep a tight reign on anyone who seeks to do anything even the slightest bit more radical or aggressive (often yelling and cursing rudely and publicly anyone who deviates from the "plan" agreed upon by the few in power)

-are not operating in the best interests of the families who work the farm

-will most surely lose the farm, even if private donors somehow come up with the funds

This will set a precedent for ALL activists and people working toward social justice in this city: Got a problem? Just turn to your local charity/wealthy patron/private donor.

In any case, this totally ignores the fact that these farmers are entitled to the land they are working, especially in a city with such limited green space and so much poverty. Furthermore, by buying in to the mayor's sleazy "private donor" move, the SCF leadership is basically shitting on all the hard work, dedication, and commitment by so many people throughout Los Angeles who have fought so hard for this space.

Stop praising the mayor for his "leadership," and stop writing the SCF Leadership a blank check of authority--if you really want to help save the farm, take direct action NOW, and don't wait around for approval from SCF "leaders." Let them dick around with the mayor all they want. There is work to be done.

And don't get mired down arguing with them about it. There's little time and energy for that.

c/s

An agent or uninformed outsider?

Grimace has some valid points, here and at this other post:

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/02/146789

I know quite a few people who have worked on support groups for the farm and I can say for a fact that Grimace's assessment is not unique--a lot of people are very unhappy with the farm's leadership and how it has treated their efforts to help out, for exactly the same reasons Grimace gives.

Is this assessment unpopular? Maybe with lots of activists who just want the fuzzy warm feeling of blindly backing up some cause they're not really connected with; definitely this assessment is unpopular with the farm's leadership. But uninformed? Based on what I've heard from a lot of other people closely involved with the farm for a long time, Grimace seems pretty well informed.

It's counter-productive and a really bad move to automatically point the finger at any internal criticism as coming from an "agent" just because it's not the politically correct thing to say or do.

But hey, maybe I'm an agent for even saying any of this, right? Silly. The real agents are just kicking back laughing their asses off at how us fools on the left end up doing most of their work for them by doing ourselves in and failing to work together to address internal issues honestly.