Portland State University

PDXScholar

Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses

Summer 7-26-2018

White Space, Black Space: Community Gardens in

Portland, Oregon
David Ross Billings Jr.
Portland State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds

Part of the Sociology Commons

Let us know how access to this document benefits you.

Recommended Citation
Billings Jr., David Ross, "White Space, Black Space: Community Gardens in Portland, Oregon" (2018).
Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4550.
https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.6435

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and
Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more
accessible: [email protected].
 White Space, Black Space:
Community Gardens in Portland, Oregon

by
David Ross Billings Jr.

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Science
in
Sociology

Thesis Committee:
Julius McGee, Chair
Amy Lubitow
Nathan McClintock

Portland State University

2018
© 2018 David Ross Billings Jr.
 i
ABSTRACT

Community gardens have been the focus of social science research in the United

States for several decades and the benefits associated with these alternative food spaces

has been well documented. More recently, scholars have begun to argue that these benefits

are inequitably distributed across society. Largely as a result of the whiteness of these

spaces, people of color are less represented in community and benefit less from their

presence. Portland, Oregon is recognized as a leader in sustainability, with its abundance

of community gardens and urban agriculture. It is also one of the whitest urban cities in the

United States. People of color have faced a legacy of oppression and marginalization in

Portland, and this is especially true for the black community. Through conducting 17 in-

depth interviews and spending an extensive amount of time observing community gardens

in Portland, this research aims to explore how the whiteness of these spaces functions to

marginalize black individuals and contributes to the ongoing oppression of the black

community. This research also demonstrates how the black community in Portland engages

community gardening in an effort to resist these and broader effects of structural racism.
 ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am truly grateful to my advisor, Doctor Julius McGee. This research would not

have been possible without his patience, guidance, and assistance. Additionally, I would

like to express my gratitude to my partner and to my family for all of their support and

encouragement throughout this project. Most importantly, I would like to thank all of the

black community gardeners who shared their time and lives’ experiences for this study.
 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................... i

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................v

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................9

2.1 Critical Race Theory .................................................................................................9
2.2 Whiteness ................................................................................................................12
2.3 Community Gardens in the United States ...............................................................18
2.4 Portland, Oregon ....................................................................................................29

3 RESEARCH METHODS & DESIGN............................................................................40

3.1 Project Design ........................................................................................................40
3.2 Data Collection .......................................................................................................44
3.3 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................48
3.4 Advantages and Limitations....................................................................................49

4 FINDINGS: Whiteness and Portland’s Community Gardens ........................................51

4.1 Observations of Whiteness ......................................................................................52
4.2 Experiences of Black Gardeners .............................................................................57

5 FINDINGS: Black Gardeners and Black Garden Spaces ...............................................73

5.1 Food Justice ............................................................................................................74
5.2 Gardening to Resist.................................................................................................77
5.3 Reflections, Leadership, and Identity......................................................................81

6 CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................89
6.1 Policy and Action ....................................................................................................93
6.2 Limitations and Future Research............................................................................95

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................97

APPENDIX A: Interview Guide ......................................................................................104

APPENDIX B: Human Subjects Approval......................................................................105

 iv
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Race/Ethnicity for PPR Community Garden Plot-holders (2016) Compared to

(2010) Census Data ............................................................................................................35

Table 2: Research Sites, Participants, Observation, and Racial Coding ............................45

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics ...........................................................................................48

 v
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Portland Parks and Recreation Gardener Reminder Chart .................................37

Figure 2: Map of Research Sites ........................................................................................45

 1
1 INTRODUCTION

Community gardens have existed in the United States for over a century and have

proliferated in many urban cities in the past few decades. They have been recognized as

an effective tool for addressing hunger and food security and they been associated with a

wide range of other benefits as well. In a review of research on community gardens,

Draper and Freedman (2010) found that improved health, food security, economic

development, preservation of open space, crime prevention, neighborhood improvement,

cultural preservation or expression, social interaction, and community organizing and

empowerment were among some of the many benefits regularly associated with

community gardens. Some researchers have also claimed that community gardens are

sites of interracial interaction (Shinew, Glover, and Parry 2004) and cultural expression

(Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). However, a more critical body of literature asserts

that the benefits associated with community gardens are inequitably distributed in many

places. Some researchers have claimed that community gardens, along with farmers

markets and other types of alternative food networks, are often white spaces (Slocum

2006; Hoover 2013) that serve to benefit white individuals, regularly at the expense and

exclusion of people of color (Guthman 2008; Pilgeram 2012).

Portland, Oregon is known for being an urban hub for community gardens and a

leader in sustainability, and scholars have recently began to study sustainability here

(Mendes et al 2008; Goodling et al. 2015; McClintock, Miewald, and McCann 2018).

Some of this research has indicated that the benefits associated with sustainability are

inequitably distributed in Oregon’s largest city (Gooding, Green, and McClintock 2015).
 2
Other research has claimed that community gardens in Portland are generally viewed as

spaces to grow food and build community but not as tools for critiquing larger structural

concerns that are linked to the food system, as is the case for food justice oriented

community gardens (McClintock et al. 2018). In a recent study of one of the city’s

community garden organizations, Zinschlag (2014) warned that unjust sustainability in

Portland might be the result of not just a lack of concern for inequality, but also a basic

lack of awareness of it. Inequality is not a new problem for the Rose City, though. The

state of Oregon, and Portland more specifically, has had a long history of racism and

oppression of people of color, much of which has been targeted at the black community

(Gibson 2007; Bates Curry-Stevens, and CCC 2014; Burke and Jeffries 2016). Despite

these more recent criticisms, the City’s community gardens continue to be a major feature

attributed to its overall sustainability and livability.

In an effort to contribute to these ongoing discussions within the literature, this

research explores the question: what are the experiences of black community gardeners in

Portland, Oregon? Through the lens of Critical Race Theory (Delgado and Stefancic

2017), this research aims to explore these experiences in order to better understand the

racial dynamics of these spaces, and how those dynamics may influence the distribution

of the benefits commonly associated with them. Critical Race Theory (CRT)

acknowledges the centrality of race and racism in the lived experiences of people of

color, and encourages the dissemination of this experiential knowledge through the

sharing of their stories. Nested within this theoretical framework is the concept of

whiteness, which I elaborate on using a transdisciplinary perspective, one of the central

tenets of the CRT framework (Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000).

 3
Drawing on literature from the fields of Legal Studies (Delgado and Stefancic

1997, 2017), Sociology (Du Bois 1995; Doane 2003; Guthman 2008; Bonilla-Silva 2015;

Alkon and Guthman 2017), Geography (Pulido 2000; Kobayashi and Peake 2000;

Andersen 2003), Philosophy (Gooding-Williams and Mills 2014; Yancy 2017) and

Anthropology (Slocum 2006, 2007), this research provides a robust elaboration of the

concept of whiteness. I employ whiteness as a conceptual tool to explore the various

manifestations of contemporary whiteness, the ideologies that reinforce it, and the way

whiteness is connected to privilege and to the oppression of people of color. Based on the

previous literature and my initial knowledge of community gardens in Portland, I

developed the following research questions: (1) how do black individuals experience

community gardens in Portland, Oregon as racialized spaces? (2) How are black

gardeners’ practices and participation in urban agriculture in Portland influenced by

racism and whiteness? (3) In what ways do the features of a community garden influence

black individuals’ participation in Portland?

The concept of whiteness has been used in previous criticisms of alternative food

(Slocum 2006, 2007; Guthman 2008; Pilgeram 2012; Henson 2014; Alkon and Vang

2016) and several gaps within this critical body of literature have been highlighted,

including the need for the inclusion of the experiences and perspectives of people of color

in this research (Guthman 2008; Hoover 2013). This study aims to address this specific

gap by exploring the way the whiteness of these spaces influences black community

gardeners. Portland’s status as the whitest metropolitan city in the US (Renn 2009 as

cited by Hern 2016) makes it an ideal place to study this phenomenon. This research also

aims to add to the literature on food justice, by showing how these white community
 4
gardens contrast black garden spaces, in the way they benefit and impact marginalized

communities. While black garden spaces regularly focus on food justice and benefitting

marginalized communities, white community gardens are often associated with

oppressive processes, including exclusion and displacement. This study also adds to the

literature on food justice by demonstrating the barriers to the creation of black garden

spaces, including the effects of institutional oppression and white resistance, which are

both founded in colorblind ideology (Bonilla-Silva 2015) and post-racialist beliefs

(Gooding-Williams and Mills 2014).

In total, I conducted 17 semi-structured, in depth interviews with black

community gardeners in Portland. As outsiders within (Collins 1986) the mostly white

city of Portland, and the mostly white alternative food spaces of community gardens,

these individuals were asked about their experiences in the gardens, perceptions of that

space and of other gardeners, and also about the impact these factors had on their

participation and their experience overall. Participants were also asked to discuss their

motivations for gardening and how gardening benefitted them. As a means of

triangulation (Creswell & Miller 2000), I spent approximately 60 hours of observation at

10 separate community gardens (2 black garden spaces, 7 white gardens, and one that did

not fit either description), had conversations with the current program director of the

Portland Parks and Recreation (PPR) community garden program, and reviewed grant

documents from some of PPR’s gardens. This information provided me with a nuanced

understanding of Portland’s community gardens as well as insights into the structure and

ideologies of PPR community garden program specifically. I took field notes following
 5
each interview, as well as during periods of observation at the gardens, and included

some of my own observations and experiences from this project.

In the following chapter, I begin with a review of the literature. First I examine

the primary theories and concepts used in this study, and then explore the previous

research on community gardens and the way these theories and concepts have been

previously applied in the literature on community gardens and on alternative food more

broadly. Next I discuss what I will refer to as black food spaces, which have been

discussed in previous research (Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Sbicca 2012; Ramirez 2014;

Figueroa and Alkon 2017) using different labels. These spaces are often centered on

notions of food justice and food sovereignty, which are much less commonly addressed

in white community gardens. I also include a discussion of historical trauma, and the way

it is connected to agriculture in the US, both as a deterrent and source of motivation for

many black individuals (Finney 2014; Reynolds and Cohen 2016; Alkon and Guthman

2017). Next, I explore the Racial Formation (Omi and Winant 2015) of Portland,

specifically focusing on the history of oppression of the black community in Portland,

and I illustrate the ways previous development efforts have been used to benefit white

residents within the city at the expense of the black community. The final section of the

literature review includes an introduction of Portland’s community gardens, and

discusses both white gardens and black garden spaces. Finally, the literature review

concludes with the statement of my specific research questions, which were informed by

previous empirical and theoretical work highlighted in the review.

Following the literature review I explain the methods used in this research and the

specific epistemological motivations for limiting the participants of this study to black
 6
Portlanders. Specifically, I employ the Outsider within Epistemology (Collins 1986),

which compliments the notion of a voice of color within CRT (Delgado and Stefancic

2017). The notion of the outsider within highlights the way in which people of color are

more able to see oppression and racism within society, and how an outsider status in a

specific space or setting may enhance this phenomenon. I briefly review the history of

this epistemology and list some of its previous applications in previous research, before

demonstrating how I intend to incorporate it into my own study. By interviewing black

individuals in a predominantly white city who participate in a movement that has been

criticized for being largely white, I was able to access some of this experiential

knowledge and explore it using the theories and concepts described above. I also used

observation at several community gardens, conversations with PPR’s community garden

directors (both past and present), and reviewed archived PPR documents as additional

sources of information and as a means of triangulation.

After introducing the methods for this study, I present my findings in two

chapters. The first chapter uses a combination of my observations and the experiences of

the gardeners I interviewed to highlight the way that community gardens can be

perceived and experienced as white spaces. In addition to about 60 hours spent observing

at several gardens, my interpretations were shaped by conversations with the current and

former director of the PPR’s community garden program and by information gathered

from archived documents (grant applications, communications about garden

development, etc.) at the PPR offices in Portland. The second chapter explores the

concerns that motivate most of the gardeners I interviewed, including the pursuit of food

justice and a desire to resist oppression and historical trauma. The pursuit of these
 7
specific motivations was described as being enabled by certain features of a community

garden, including the presence of other black gardeners, black leadership, and an

emphasis on black identity and culture.

Overall, I find that many black community gardeners in Portland do experience

community gardens as white spaces, which limits or deters their participation in these

gardens. Black community gardeners’ experiences with whiteness extend beyond the

physical spaces of individual gardens and several gardeners’ experiences with whiteness

shaped their understanding of Oregon’s food system more broadly. I also find that many

black gardeners are motivated by a food justice concerns and the desire to resist

oppression and historical trauma. Black garden spaces provide benefits to black

individuals that community gardens which are coded as white do not, and in most cases

cannot. Many of these benefits are the result of specific attributes, including the presence

of other black gardeners, black leadership, and an emphasis on black identity and culture.

Additionally, black garden spaces act as counterspaces (Case 2012) for the black

community, which are increasingly important because places that previously served this

function have been eliminated by gentrification. While the black community seeks to

create and sustain spaces such as these, they face barriers through structural oppression

and the resistance of white individuals and organizations.

The final chapter of this thesis concludes with a discussion of the research

questions and highlights some of the implications of this research. I address the findings

overall and then discuss each research question individually. I also make some

recommendation for Portland Parks and Recreation and discuss the theoretical benefits of

supporting the growth of black garden spaces in Portland. Finally, I conclude by

 8
discussing some of the major limitations of this research and suggest some directions for

future studies of race and community gardens in Portland, Oregon.

 9
2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Critical Race Theory

This research employs Critical Race Theory (Crenshaw 1995; Delgado and

Stefancic 2017) as its dominant theoretical framework. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is an

interdisciplinary theory that acknowledges that “racism is pervasive, systemic, and deeply

ingrained” within the United States (Delgado and Stefancic 2017:91). CRT originated in

the late 1970s within legal scholarship, and since then the movement surrounding CRT

has expanded to include a wide variety of individuals in activism and academia, who are

interested in understanding and ultimately transforming the relationship between race,

racism, and power in the US (Delgado and Stefancic 2017). The CRT framework relies

on five general components, including “(1) the centrality of race and racism and their

intersectionality with other forms of subordination, (2) the challenge to dominant

ideology, (3) the commitment to social justice, (4) the centrality of experiential

knowledge, and (5) the transdisciplinary perspective” (Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso

2000:63). CRT also assumes that (1) racism is ordinary in the US and the common

experience of people of color; (2) white supremacy benefits all white individuals to some

extent, which leaves little motivation to overturn it; (3) race is a social construct (not

corresponding to biology or genetics); and (4) unique experiences with oppression give

people of color a certain “voice of color” that allows them to produce knowledge about

race and racism usually unintelligible to whites (Delgado and Stefancic 2017).

Critical Race Theory has been used to explore the way people of color are

systematically oppressed and how this is connected to their relationship with the
 10
environment. In a study of the racialized relationship between African Americans and the

environment, Finney (2014) demonstrated that there is a need to draw on diverse sources

of information to explore the intricacies of the relationship and suggested that CRT, in

combination with other viewpoints, allows for a framework that is broad and adaptable

enough to do so. Finney also used CRT to explore the way that historical racism and

conceptions of race have influenced African American participation in environmental

movements. In a more micro-level study of the urban environment, Garcia, Gee, and

Jones (2016) used CRT to examine disparities in access to parks in Los Angeles. They

found that people of color were intentionally excluded from parks and outdoor spaces by

city planners, politicians, and white residents, through methods of de facto segregation,

zoning laws, and fiscal discrimination. They pointed out how these patterns are important

when considering connections between the built environment and racial disparities in

health outcomes.

Because community gardens exist within the same structural confines as most

other institutions in society, and can be viewed as both a part of the built environment

and a type of environmental movement, CRT provides an ideal lens through which to

explore the ways racism has been ingrained in within community garden spaces. CRT has

been applied sparingly within the literature on community gardens and Urban Agriculture

(UA), but the few instances that do exist demonstrate the utility this framework can

provide when considering the racial dynamics of community gardens. In a noteworthy

publication, Hoover (2013) encouraged researchers to consider UA through the CRT

framework to examine white spaces and white privilege that exists in a movement that

should be generally aimed at increasing food justice. He also points out a need for future
 11
research to include the perception of marginalized groups in regards to UA, and how they

view themselves engaging in the movement surrounding it.

A study of community gardens in New York City (the US city with largest

number of community gardens) was recently conducted by Reynolds, who claimed that

“viewed through the lens of CRT, the re-inscription of racial disparities and white

privilege within alternative food movements becomes less surprising, and can even be

expected without conscious effort to dismantle oppression at numerous levels, from the

personal to the structural” (2014:245). Reynolds and Cohen (2016) later elaborated on the

application of CRT in the study of UA by examining the influence of structural racism on

New York City’s UA and community garden programs. They claimed that, “the

cumulative system of racial bias that extends across society and perpetuates disadvantage

among communities of color,” is reinforced by internalized racism, interpersonal racism,

and institutionalized racism. Further, they argued that “CRT explains that racial

inequalities grow from patterns of implicit racial bias--which exist within whole

institutions and extend throughout society--not simply from individuals’ explicitly racist

beliefs or isolated instances of racial discrimination” (Reynolds and Cohen 2016:10).

By employing CRT in the study of community gardens, I aim to provide another

example of the ways this theory can be adapted to various dimensions of US society, and

to contribute to the literature which demonstrates how racism is ingrained in the built

environment and works to exclude people of color from environmental movements.

While CRT provides a useful overall framework for the exploration of racism with

community gardens, the specific manifestation of racism with which this research is

interested in understanding requires additional conceptual tools. Because community

 12
gardens have been criticized for being white spaces (Slocum 2006; Hoover 2013), it is

necessary to include an exploration of this concept. While Critical Whiteness Studies is a

subfield nested within Critical Race Theory, this research will rely on an interdisciplinary

understanding of the concept of whiteness. This is necessary because of the multitude of

disciplines that have made important contributions to this topic, and because the

interdisciplinary study of race is central to CRT (Delgado and Stefancic 2017).

2.2 Whiteness

This research will use whiteness as a conceptual tool for exploring the racialized

dynamics of the community gardens in Portland, drawing on literature from the fields of

Legal Studies (Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017), Sociology (Du Bois 1995; Doane

2003; Guthman 2008; Bonilla-Silva 2015; Alkon and Guthman 2017), Geography

(Pulido 2000; Kobayashi and Peake 2000; Andersen 2003), Philosophy (Gooding-

Williams and Mills 2014; Yancy 2017) and Anthropology (Slocum 2006, 2007). The

study of whiteness has become more prevalent in the last two decades, though it is not at

all a new phenomenon. As early as 1910, W.E.B. Du Bois was writing about the

“discovery of whiteness among the world’s peoples” and in his 1920 publication he

lamented that, “Then always, somehow, some way, silently but clearly, I am given to

understand that whiteness is the ownership of the earth forever and ever, Amen!”

(1995:454). Doane (2003) considers the contemporary study of whiteness to be a

“repackaging” of ideas previously articulated regarding whiteness, with an explicit focus

on whiteness as the topic of interest. And while the study of whiteness may have been

around for some time, the effects of whiteness have been around even longer. Omi and
 13
Winant note that from its earliest days as a country “Anglo-conformity” helped to make

whiteness a lasting norm that continues to influence the nation’s culture and appearance

(2015:77).

Whiteness is defined in many ways throughout the literature, but there are some

common assumptions that are generally agreed upon among the scholars of whiteness.

First of all, whiteness is normative, yet malleable. It is normative in the way it is centered

in society to control values and institutions, and marginalizes the culture and values of

nonwhite groups so that the term American usually connotes images of white individuals

(Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017; Kobayashi and Peake 2000; Bonilla-Silva 2003;

Doane 2003; Guthman 2008; Yancy 2017). Whiteness is malleable in the way it

transforms itself over time (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Slocum 2007). Various groups and

individuals have been able access whiteness to a certain extent, by adopting and

integrating into white culture, or “passing” as white (Pulido 2000). This has been the case

historically for ethnic groups such as Irish and Italians, who were not always considered

white as they are now, and this may be the case for other ethnic groups in the future

(Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017; Bonilla-Silva 2003).

Second, whiteness is usually invisible to most white Americans, or at least less

visible than it is to individuals from other racial or ethnic groups (Delgado and Stefancic

1997, 2017; Doane 2003). For white individuals, their own race is often transparent so

that they do not see it as a main component of their identities’ in the way they do for

people of color. As a result of this transparency, white individuals do not usually consider

their positionality to be based on their race (Slocum 2006). Doane (2003) has suggested

that because sociologists have found that many white individuals have not even
 14
considered the meaning of whiteness, this should be the central component of interest for

sociologists studying whiteness. The invisibility of whiteness is reinforced the colorblind

ideology held by many whites, which is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Third, white individuals benefit through their privilege in a variety of ways,

including higher incomes, better health, and lower exposure to the criminal justice system

(Du Bois 1995; Kobayashi and Peake 2000; Gooding-Williams and Mills 2014; Omi and

Winant 2015; Delgado and Stefancic 2017). White privilege is reinforced by cultural

practices and social institutions that are also normative in society (Slocum 2007) and it is

inextricably linked to the oppression of people of color (Pulido 2000; Delgado and

Stefancic 2017; Yancy 2017). It is important to note that white individuals need not hold

racists beliefs or commit racist actions to benefit from white privilege (Yancy 2017). The

normativity and invisibility of whiteness are part of what make this privilege so powerful

and pervasive, regardless of intentionality.

Fourth, Whiteness is a standpoint or way of looking at the world, which is in

some cases referred to as white epistemology (Ramirez 2014) or the “white gaze”

(Morrison 1992; Kobayashi and Peake 2000; Yancy 2017). From this standpoint, other

knowledge and ways of being are viewed as less legitimate. Through the white gaze,

whiteness is associated with civilization, positivity, and progress, while blackness an

dark skin are associated with evil and savagery (Du Bois 1995; Omi and Winant 2015;

Yancy 2017), and the media portrays black individuals and other people of color

negatively, as dangerous, criminalistic, or hypersexual (Delgado and Stefancic 2017;

Yancy 2017). Yancy defines the white gaze as “that performance of distortional ‘seeing’

that evolves out of and is inextricably linked to various raced and racist myths, white
 15
discursive practices, and centripetal processes of white systemic power and white

solipsism” (2017:xxxii). Often, this standpoint leads white individuals to feel they need to

“show the way” for brown and black individuals and communities, as has been found to

be the case within alternative food (Slocum 2007; Guthman 2008; Hoover 2013;

Passidimo 2014).

Color-blindness and post-racialism

The most modern manifestation of whiteness in the United States rests upon a

foundational belief that US society has reached a post-racial state and a corresponding

viewpoint of colorblindness (Bonilla-Silva 2015). According to Gooding-Williams and

Mills:

The majority of white Americans now believe that racial justice has either been
fully or almost fully achieved. Thus, there is no further need for measures of
preferential treatment and affirmative action, let alone any more radical policy
like reparations; and it is diversity, rather than racial justice, that is typically
invoked to defend whatever weak programs of corrective reform remain
operational. (2014:2)
While the facts differ in terms of continuing (and in some cases increasing) disparities

between whites and people of color, this belief is pervasive within the US. Partnered with

the notion that we have become a post-racial society is the ideology that aims to ignore

the race-based differences in experiences and outcomes between whites and people of

color in the US. Bonilla-Silva (2003) has labeled this viewpoint Color-Blind Racism, and

claimed that this ideology is based on “a superficial extension of the principles of

liberalism to racial matters that results in ‘raceless’ explanations for all sorts of race-

related affairs” (2015:1364). Bonilla-Silva assures us that this is not the case though, and

that racial inequalities are still produced systematically, through practices that are much
 16
less obvious and visible than previous forms of racism in the US. Doane (2003) asserted

that this color-blind ideology is integral to the maintenance of white hegemony in the US,

as it combines with the invisibility of whiteness and white privilege to influence the way

white Americans see and understand the influence of race.

White privilege and white space

It is plain to modern white civilization that the subjection of the white working
classes cannot much longer be maintained. Education, political power, and
increased knowledge of the technique and meaning of the industrial process are
destined to make a more and more equitable distribution of wealth in the near
future. The day of the very rich is drawing to a close, so far as individual white
nations are concerned. But there is a loophole. There is a chance for exploitation
on an immense scale for inordinate profit, not simply to the very rich, but to the
middle class and to the laborers. This chance lies in the exploitation of darker
peoples. (Du Bois 1995)

While Du Bois is referencing Germany almost a century ago, the loophole he

described has also manifested in the United States. As early as 1920, Du Bois had

identified the potential for white privilege to become a dominant force in society, one

which was predicated on the oppression of people of color. Over time it has become

painfully clear that it is impossible to privilege one group without disadvantaging

another, and that white privilege specifically is always tied to the oppression of people of

color (Pulido 2000). It is important to look back in time because in addition to being

spatial, white privilege is also historical. Understandings of contemporary racial

inequities must include historical considerations because racism is no longer overt in the

ways it used to be and can no longer be reduced to individual acts (Pulido 2000; Bonilla-

Silva 2015; Omi and Winant 2015).

 17
As discussed above, white privilege is central to this study in both its

contributions to the phenomenon of whiteness and its direct relationship to the oppression

of people of color. One aspect of white privilege that is extremely important for this

research is its relation to space. Occupying space is a particular form of white privilege

(Kobayashi and Peake 2000) and at the same time a resource in the reproduction of that

privilege, because “the full exploitation of white privilege requires the production of

space with a very high proportion of white people” (Pulido 2000:16). How spaces are

constructed or represented in discourse leads to certain groups feeling more welcome,

which is a form of privilege in itself (Pilgeram 2012). Therefore, spaces become coded as

white through the bodies that occupy them and the ideas that circulate within them

(Slocum 2007; Yancy 2017). Several scholars (Slocum and Saldanha 2013; Ramirez

2014) have used the idea of “viscosity” to explore the way that the presence of mostly

white bodies codes spaces as white, as they “stick together” and make the space seem

impermeable to people of color.

While whiteness functions through privilege to continue segregation and

oppression, it should not be considered only in terms of privilege, as that is just one

aspect of whiteness. Though there is much more that can be said about whiteness, the

topics covered in this section are the most relevant for this study, including: the

underlying colorblindness and post racialist beliefs held by many white individuals; the

normativity and malleability of whiteness; its invisibility or transparency to most whites;

the way in which it contributes to (and is a product of) white privilege, and therefor white

space; and how it is embodied by the white gaze as a way of viewing and understanding

the world. These concepts will all be relevant for interpreting the findings of this study,
 18
as well as for understanding some of the criticisms included in the final section of this

review. Before moving on to those criticisms though, it is important to first explore the

history and conception of community gardens in the US.

2.3 Community Gardens in the United States

Community gardening began as early as the 1890s in the United States, with

vacant lot cultivation as a response to rapid migration into cities and a growing demand

for affordable food (Lawson 2005; Draper and Freedman 2010; Poulsen et al. 2014).

Their popularity has risen and fallen in direct relation to the socio-economic state of the

nation, often increasing in in number in response to economic crises (Lawson 2005;

Pudup 2008). Community gardens played a central role during both World Wars and the

Great Depression, as is highlighted by the rise of Liberty Gardens (WWI), Relief Gardens

(Great Depression), and Victory Gardens (WWII) following the onset of each of these

events (Lawson 2005; Pudup 2008; Poulsen et al. 2014). Later in the 20th century,

community gardens increased in popularity again, this time as a way to combat the

decline of urban cities in the 60s and 70s, and by the mid-1990s there were over 15,000

community gardens in the US (Malakoff 1995 as cited by Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny

2004). More recently, community gardens and other forms of urban agriculture have

become commonly used in urban planning (Poulsen et al. 2014) and community gardens

have proliferated in many major cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Boston,

Chicago, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny

2004; Lawson 2005; Draper and Freedman 2010). As of 2011, there was an estimated
 19
18,000 community gardens nationwide (Poulsen et al. 2014), though this is likely a

conservative estimate, based on specific definitions of community gardens.

The term community garden is used broadly across a host of academic literature

and in popular culture, and applied in varying ways throughout. Some basic definitions

are provided that indicate that a community gardens is an organized parcel of land in an

urban space, used to grow food and benefit people and community (Ohmer et al. 2009).

However, broad definitions such as these do not capture many of the unique

characteristics common among most spaces referred to as community gardens. Some

scholars argue that the lack of clarity surrounding the phrase is problematic. Pudup

(2008) was critical of the way community garden has been used to describe everything

from crime diversion gardens to hospital therapy gardens.

Despite this lack of clarity or refined definition, there are several features

regularly associated with community gardens throughout the literature which also apply

to the gardens included in this study. This does not include the types of garden spaces

Pudup (2008) is critical of, such as gardens located at hospitals or prisons, though some

of the gardens in the literature and at my research sites are partnered with or located at

schools. It is generally accepted that community gardens are distinguished from private

gardens by public access, some level of democratic control, and the combined effort of

multiple individuals (Draper and Freedman 2010). Contemporary community gardens

also regularly function as community meeting spaces as well as places to grow food and

other plants. They range from grassroots style models that are community-managed to

more institutionalized models that are managed by an outside organization or local

government (Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004).

 20
Many community gardens are divided into plots owned by individuals, families,

or groups, and there are also some that work to grow food more in the fashion of farm,

where the harvest is then shared amongst the contributors (Pudup 2008). There are also

community gardens that donate some or all of the food they grow to local shelters,

pantries, and kitchens. From my own exploration of community gardens in Portland and

other cities, I have found that many community gardens that are operated by an outside

organization require that an annual fee be paid for temporary ownership of a plot. There

are also community gardens that offer free individual plots or group participation, and

manage to fund the garden in some other way. Many community gardens, especially

those managed by local government or an outside organization, have established rules

and regulations in place that govern the practices of the gardeners and operations of the

gardens.

Research on community gardens

As was briefly mentioned, community gardens are also included in discussions of

urban agriculture (UA) and alternative food. While UA includes a variety of garden or

farm projects, community gardens are the most pervasive manifestation of UA at the

group level (Poulsen et al. 2014). At an even broader level, community gardens are

regularly included in the discourse on alternative food networks, which are defined by

shorter distances between the production and consumption of food, smaller scale

production, organic or holistic methods, and a focus on sustainability (Jarosz 2008).

Discussions of alternative food networks usually include farmers markets and community

supported agriculture programs, as well as community gardens and other forms of UA.
 21
While most of the literature in this review focuses on community gardens specifically,

there are some relevant discussions of UA and alternative food networks included as

well.

There is a host of research that highlights the benefits of community gardens. In a

review of literature on community gardens from the previous decade, Draper and

Freedman (2010) found that improved health, food security, economic development,

preservation of open space, crime prevention, neighborhood improvement, cultural

preservation or expression, social interaction, and community organizing and

empowerment were among the most common benefits associated with community

gardening. Many of these benefits theoretically extend beyond individual gardeners, to

whole communities. Ohmer et al. (2009) claimed that the mere presence of community

gardens and other green spaces can facilitate social interaction and cohesion within

communities. Other scholars have specifically noted that community gardens have the

potential to connect people of color to their cultural heritage (Saldivar-Tanaka and

Krasny 2004), and that they provide opportunities for interracial (specifically black and

white) interaction where it is otherwise lacking (Shinew, Glover, and Parry 2004). Draper

and Freedman (2010:459) argue that “community gardens provide an effective means for

community-based practitioners to carry out their roles within the areas of organizing,

development, and change.”

However, while the literature on the positive impacts of community gardens

abounds, there are also more critical analyses of community gardens and more broadly of

UA and alternative food networks. In contrast to the previously mentioned research,

Reynolds (2014) demonstrated how the simple presence of a garden does not eliminate
 22
oppression, though it may alleviate some of the effects of racial disparity, and that in

some cases UA and community gardens may perpetuate or reinforce inequality.

Similarly, Goodling, Green and McClintock (2015) argue that without explicit measures

to confront racial inequality, the sustainability movement’s workings can reproduce that

inequality. Of alternative food networks, McClintock (2014:148) suggests that “often

despite their progressive or radical intentions they are neoliberal in their outcomes, or

reformist at best, in that they continue to work within the capitalistic logic of the food

system.” Further, Jarosz (2007) points out that alternative food networks such as

community gardens, which are often framed around social justice concerns, are not

necessarily driven by or actually concerned with those issues. Slocum (2006, 2007) is

specifically critical of the whiteness of the alternative food movement, which is perceived

as more of an issue of diversity within the movement than an effect of the oppression

already embedded in the societies in which alternative food networks exist. Viewing

racial disparities in terms of diversity, rather than justice, is in line with the notion of

post-racialism (Gooding-Williams and Mills 2014) discussed earlier in this review.

Community gardens have also been linked to gentrification (Shinew et al. 2004,

Hern 2016), which is one contemporary manifestation of the relationship between

privilege and oppression. Gentrification often includes the inflow of privileged whites at

the cost of the displacement of people of color and low-income individuals. One

prominent example of this complex relationship occurred in New York City in the late

nineties, when Mayor Giuliani proposed to sell nearly all of the city’s publicly owned

community garden spaces for development (Nemore 1998 as cited by Saldivar-Tanaka

and Krasny 2004), many of which were established and operated by people of color in
 23
low-income communities (Reynolds 2016). While his predecessor, Mayor Bloomberg,

compromised in 2002 by preserving 500 of New York’s community gardens, the rest

were displaced by new apartments and other forms of development (Steinhauer 2002 as

cited by Saldivar-Tanaka and Krasny 2004). Highlighting the connection between

gentrification and race, Thrasher (2016) conducted a two-year ethnography of one

Brooklyn community garden and found that the garden did not encourage interracial

relationship building, as some scholars have suggested they do. Rather, the community

garden amplified racial tensions that were related to the rapid gentrification in the

neighborhood; rising rents forced some longtime residents of color to leave the area and

affluent whites took their place both in the neighborhood and in the garden.

Whiteness in alternative food

As mentioned briefly above, many scholars have taken a critical approach to

examining the whiteness of Farmers Markets (Slocum 2007; Guthman 2008; Pilgeram

2012; Alkon and Vang 2016), community supported agriculture (Guthman 2008), and the

broader alternative food movement (Slocum 2007; Henson 2014). Only recently has

whiteness been used to examine community gardens, however this is often under the

label of UA (Hoover 2013) or other generalizations such as ‘food projects’ (Passidimo

2014), and is still scarce. Within this literature, there is a general criticism of the

whiteness of these spaces of alternative food production and distribution. Slocum argues

that “while the ideals of healthy food, people and land are not intrinsically white, the

objectives, tendencies, strategies, the emphases and absences and the things overlooked

in community food that make them so” (2007:526). Guthman (2008) adds that the
 24
discourse that generally praises white individuals in these spaces also helps to code them

as white. Henson (2014) notes that segregation in the broader community makes it

difficult for interracial interaction within alternative food spaces and that this helps to

maintain their whiteness.

Other scholars point out how even when alternative food projects are created

within communities of color, white leadership of these projects increases the potential

that they will exacerbate systems of privilege and oppression (Hoover 2013; Passidimo

2014; Bowens 2015; Reynolds and Cohen 2016). Guthman (2008) also notes that the

whiteness can be additionally attributed to the colorblind approach taken by much of the

white leadership in these spaces, and that further research should focus on the ways that

people of color experience exclusion in alternative food spaces. Guthman suggests that a

starting point in this work is for white individuals to “state how much they do not know

to open up the space that might allow for others to define the spaces and projects that will

help spurn the transformation to a more just and ecological way of providing food”

(2008:395). However, Alkon and Guthman (2017) point out that despite the

pervasiveness of color-blindness and whiteness within alternative food, there is hope as a

more race-conscious food activism is on the rise.

Black food space, justice, and resistance

The criticisms of the whiteness of alternative food spaces are of the utmost

importance for this study. However, this literature review would be sorely lacking if it did

not also recognize that many (mostly black) activists from low-income communities of

color have focused on food justice by using alternative food systems as a way to combat
 25
racial inequality, and explicitly work against the notion that the alternative food

movement is exclusively a white thing (Alkon and Vang 2016). Sbicca points out that

while whites dominate the alternative food movement, often motivated by localism and

sustainability, food justice projects led by people of color contrast this with a focus on

racial inequality and “the right of historically disenfranchised communities to have

healthy, culturally appropriate food, which is also justly and sustainably grown”

(2012:456). Similar to environmental justice, which focuses on preventing the unequal

exposure to environmental harm, food justice works to increase equal access to healthy

food in low-income communities of color by resisting institutional racism (Alkon and

Agyeman 2011).

Food justice projects are founded on an anti-oppression ideology, meant to

address racism produced and perpetuated by food systems, and stress the need to create

space for local residents to come up with solutions that best meet the needs of their

communities (Sbicca 2012). These concepts are also sometimes discussed in terms of

food sovereignty, which underscores the need for communities of color to have control

over their food systems (McClintock et al. 2018). Alkon and Agyeman (2011) assert that

a communities have the right to define their own food systems and means of production

and agree that food sovereignty calls for more equal distribution of power in shaping food

systems. However, Ramirez (2015) warns that an emphasis on food sovereignty should

not replace the food justice ideology because this displaces the focus on the institutional

racism that influences food systems and re-centers the place-based motivations of many

white food spaces. Regardless of which term is applied, there is an obvious distinction

between organizations that aim to conceal racial tensions and those that focus on racial
 26
inequality and ongoing racism. As Ramirez points out “race, power and privilege emerge

through community spaces; they either reify existing inequalities or challenge them,

depending on how the food space is being produced” (2014:752).

Often times food justice organizations and spaces are given names that represent a

focus on African American culture, such as, “Growing Power, Phat Beets Produce, and

the Detroit Black Community Food Security Network” (Alkon and Vang 2016:392).

These organizations often connect their work to historical Black Power movements, such

as the Black Panthers, who promoted social justice through group buying power and

providing lunch to children (Alkon and Agyeman 2011; Burke and Jeffries 2016). Other

examples of these historical movements (or what Pulido (2016) has referred to as the

Black Radical Tradition) include The Nation of Islam and the Pan African Orthodox

Christian Church, which both purchased large plots of land in the 1990s with the goal of

establishing a self-sustaining the black community (McCutcheon 2011). More modern

examples include the People’s Grocery in Oakland, where anti-oppression training is

required for volunteers (Sbicca, 2012). Additionally, Clean Greens in Seattle “pushes a

politics that is proudly black” and creates black food spaces (Ramirez 2014:756), while

Chicago’s Healthy Food Hub and Oakland’s Mandela Marketplace resist critiques of

alternative food as “elitist” (read: white) by working within an African American cultural

framework that puts issues of race, health, and community development at the top of their

list. They work to combat racialized oppression within their communities and depend on

black leaders and black representation in their organizations to code them as black spaces

(Figueroa and Alkon 2017). Other food justice scholars (McCutcheon 2011; Hoover

2013; Passidimo 2014) agree that black leadership is needed in organizations and spaces
 27
that intend to benefit black communities. Similar projects geared towards the Latinx

community are becoming more common as well (Ramirez 2014; Alkon and Vang 2016).

Many of these organizations encourage resistance to historical trauma and

ongoing oppression, are a source of community and individual empowerment, and

provide spaces in which to resist negative images and stereotypes (Reynolds and Cohen

2016; Figueroa and Alkon 2017). The concept of historical trauma has been identified as

a “large scale, systems-related, macro-stressor” that negatively impacts the well-being of

a specific racial or ethnic group (Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson 2003 as cited by

Sotero 2006:96) as well as “the cumulative and collective psychological and emotional

injury sustained over a lifetime and across generations resulting from massive group

trauma experiences” (Brave Heart 2003). Based on a review of the literature on historical

and intergenerational trauma, Sotero (2006:94-95) suggested four main assumptions

underpin the theory of historical trauma:

(1) mass trauma is deliberately and systematically inflicted upon a target

population by a subjugating, dominant population; (2) trauma is not limited to a
single catastrophic event, but continues over an extended period of time; (3)
traumatic events reverberate throughout the population, creating a universal
experience of trauma; and (4) the magnitude of the trauma experience derails the
population from its natural, projected historical course resulting in a legacy of
physical, psychological, social and economic disparities that persists across
generations.
Slavery is the most obvious source of historical trauma for African Americans, but

trauma has also resulted from (and been connected to) more recent historical events, such

as waves of “urban renewal” across the US that disproportionately burdened black

communities (Fullilove 2001).

While community gardening or the act of growing food can relate to previous

trauma or oppression for people of color, it can also provide a therapeutic space. Bowens
 28
(2015) highlighted the legacy of oppression that has been bound to agricultural for people

of color in the US, and illustrated some examples in which they are using agriculture to

heal and resist these forces in rural cities across the US. Reynolds and Cohen (2016)

documented similar efforts and actions in the more urban environment of New York City.

Figueroa and Alkon highlight this notion as well, stating that growing food is “not only a

way to connect to the earth, as it often is for alternative food movements, but also a way

to heal the trauma associated with forced agricultural labor and to empower a community

through reimagined and reclaimed foodways” (2017:217). The spaces created by these

organizations are therefore not only beneficial to the communities they serve, but may be

therapeutic to the people of color who spend time in them.

Case has suggested that spaces such as these should be dubbed “counterspaces”

and claims that they “promote the psychological well-being of individuals who

experience oppression” “by challenging deficit-oriented societal narratives concerning

marginalized individuals identities” (2012:257). Reynolds and Cohen (2016) also

highlight examples where urban farms and gardens provide “safe spaces” for women of

color, LGBTQ individuals, and previously incarcerated youth. For people of color, these

counterspaces are even more important in places that are extremely white, as the constant

exposure to whiteness can be a form of oppression or trauma in itself. This is illustrated

quite well by Richard Wright, when he writes of experiences with whiteness from his

childhood,

It was as though I was continuously reacting to the threat of some natural force
whose hostile behavior could not be predicted. I had never in my life been abused
by whites, but I had already become as conditioned to their existence as though I
had been the victim of a thousand lynchings. (1947:65)
 29
Thus, these black food spaces serve a multitude of purposes for black communities,

acting as counterspaces where individuals can have a therapeutic experience and resist

negative stereotypes of the black identity, and providing a platform to work towards food

justice and community empowerment.

2.4 Portland, Oregon

Before describing the community garden scene in Portland, it is necessary to

establish some important history in order to understand the racial formation of the city.

This history will help to illuminate some of the racial projects that have shaped Portland,

and influenced the way individuals perceive the racial dynamics of the city. According to

Omi and Winant, “a racial project is simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or

explanation of racial identities and meanings, and an effort to organize and distribute

resources along particular racial lines” (2015:125). This history will also help to provide

an understanding of how interactions, spaces, and processes became racialized, or how

they were given racial meaning through historical processes. Because black community

gardeners in Portland constitute the population of this study, the history of black

communities in Portland is especially important for this research. A thorough

understanding of this history will allow for a more nuanced interpretation of the

individual experiences of the gardeners who participate in this project.

Both the city of Portland and state of Oregon have had extremely racist pasts.

While these prejudices may have simply evolved over time into more subtle forms, more

aggressive, unabashed types of racism and discrimination were prevalent for over a

century in Portland and across the state. One of the earliest historical instances of state
 30
oppression of black people in Oregon was marked by the passage of laws in 1844, which

banned slavery and simultaneously made it illegal for black individuals to reside in the

state, or even to be in it after sundown (Bates et al. 2014). These laws were slightly

amended with the adoption of the state constitution in 1857, which barred black

individuals who weren’t already in the state from living in Oregon (Bates et al. 2014),

and again in 1866, when the 14th amendment was passed and ratified in Oregon. While

the 14th amendment granted all US born individuals citizenship, which theoretically made

it legal for black individuals to move into the state (Bates et al. 2014), Oregon rescinded

its ratification in 1868 did not fully ratify the 14th amendment until over 100 years later

in 1973 (Hern 2016). The clause in Oregon’s constitution banning black people from

coming to and living in the state was not officially removed until 1926 (Gibson 2007).

By 1900, there were just over 1,100 African Americans living in Oregon and

about two thirds of them resided in Portland. Just two decades later the nationwide KKK

revival made its way to Portland and was embraced by at least 35,000 card carrying

members (Burke and Jeffries 2016). Their reign ended within the decade due to internal

contention and corruption, though Klan parades were common in Portland during this

time and crosses were burnt atop Mount Scott. In 1923, a KKK member was elected

Governor of the state (Burke and Jeffries 2016). Despite this terror-ridden climate,

though, an African American community continued to grow in Northeast Portland and

nearby areas. By the 1930s, the black community in Portland was thriving with a black

physician, black dentist, and multiple black lawyers and ministers (Bates et al. 2014).

WWII drew even more African Americans to Portland to work in the shipyards.

The population of Portland grew rapidly during this time, which led to the creation of
 31
Vanport City as a temporary housing solution. The general attitude was that if more black

people were coming to Portland there needed to be a place for them, and the white

majority didn’t want black people moving into their neighborhoods (Burke and Jeffries

2016). Vanport was constructed in a hurry, in an undesirably low-lying area of land right

next to the Columbia River. Many of the black individuals and families that arrived in

Portland were funneled directly into the temporary city. Vanport flooded in 1948, after a

railroad berm that doubled as a dike broke, and massive amounts of water rushed into the

city. Over a third of the population of Vanport (about 17,000 people) was black when it

flooded (Burke and Jeffries 2016), in stark contrast to the rest of Portland. Housing was

already an issue for the black community and ineffective rehousing strategies by the local

and state government only added to this problem. The flooding of Vanport led to further

growth of the black community in North Portland, as many of the black individuals who

were forced to evacuate were funneled into the Albina District. In 1950, almost half of

the 10,000 black people living in Portland resided in Albina (Burke and Jeffries 2016).

Portland’s black population rose to about 15,600 a decade later with just under three

quarters of those living in Albina. This did not happen by chance; the boundaries of

Albina were maintained through physical violence, de facto segregation, redlining, and

discriminatory lending practices which perpetuated the racial inequality in Portland

(Gibson 2007; Hern 2016).

In the 1950s the city’s construction of the Memorial Coliseum and Interstate 5

fractured the black community, as hundreds of homes and businesses in the area were

demolished and families were forced to relocate without assistance from the city (Burke

and Jeffries 2016). Portland’s black community was further devastated by development
 32
initiated by the Portland Development Commission (PDC), which was created in 1958.

Through the Central Albina Plan and other efforts, the PDC targeted Albina for urban

renewal projects that were the primary force of destruction to the black community for

over a decade (Burke and Jeffries 2016). While the community was able to pressure the

city into creating the Citizens Planning Board as a means of having input into the efforts

of the PDC, this only had a minor impact as internal leadership and funding struggles

kept the Planning Board from having much influence. The PDC dealt another blow to the

black community by demolishing homes and businesses for the expansion of Emanuel

Hospital, which was abandoned in the mid-70s due to lack of federal funding (Burke and

Jeffries 2016).

Disinvestment continued into the 1980s and the neighborhood continued to

decline, as drug traffic from Los Angeles led to increase drug use and violence in the

neighborhood, including added police violence from the “war on drugs.” During this

time, the black population decreased in Albina; many of those who could afford it began

to leave the area (Gibson 2007). In 1990, African Americans still made up about three

quarters of Albina (Hern 2016) but the city renewed its urban renewal efforts in the area

and this attracted many young whites who were easily able to get loans for businesses

and homes and take advantage of the rock bottom property values. The City’s efforts,

through the PDC (now Prosper Portland) and initiatives such as the Interstate Corridor

Urban Renewal Area (Portland Community Gardens Program 2001) and the Albina

Community Plan, directly spurred the gentrification that is the most recent source of

displacement for the black community in Portland, and perhaps most devastating (Hern

2016). These same initiatives provided funding to institutionalize Beech Community

 33
Garden (Portland Community Garden Program 2001), and other community gardens in

and near Albina.

Hern (2016) claimed that Albina is the starkest example of displacement fueled by

gentrification in the US. By the end of the century, new white homeowners were rapidly

displacing black families (Gibson 2007), and by 2010 less than a quarter of Albina

residents were black. The city has taken some small efforts to address the issue of

displacement, such as developing affordable housing in the Albina district that gives

preference to individuals who have ties to the community and are at risk of being, or have

already been, displaced (City of Portland 2015). However, many black individuals and

families who did not leave Portland have been scattered about in areas such as East

Portland, where amenities including public transit, grocery stores, and community

gardens are less common (Hern 2016). The increased development in Albina, beginning

in the 1990s, has been accompanied by a general neglect of East Portland, and this

uneven development of the city allows for racialized disparities to persist and grow, as

the less affluent communities of color are funneled into that area (Goodling et al. 2015).

Albina is an important focal point of Portland’s history and racial formation

because it was the center of so much of the oppression faced the by the black community,

via systemic and structural racism, and the site of many racial projects on behalf of both

black and white communities and individuals. The history that unfolded in Albina

demonstrates some of the types of racialization that occurred over the past century,

including the racialization of housing, education, and law enforcement. As Bates et al.

noted,
 34
African Americans in Multnomah County continue to live with the effects of
racialized policies, practices, and decision-making. The stress of racism has a
profound impact on health and wellness, as do other social determinants of health,
such as ongoing discrimination in housing, school discipline, and racial profiling
by police. (2014:2).
Bates et al. (2014) also demonstrated that white families income is more than double that

of African American families and that African Americans are almost twice as likely to be

unemployed (2009 data). The report also showed that the poverty rate for African

American youth is more than three times that of white youth, and African American

children are more likely to be placed in foster care, less likely to finish high school, and

are more than six times as likely to be charged with a crime as white youth. In regards to

property ownership, about twice the percentage of white households own their homes and

the report mentions that this likely related to the displacement resulting from the

gentrification of the Albina District (Bates et al. 2014). The displacement of black

individuals from this part of Portland has been predicated upon the influx of white

individuals whose privilege allowed them to easily buy property in the area.

Despite the small size of Portland’s black population, these glaring disparities are

an unfortunate reality of Portland's current racial dynamics, and a process of the racial

formations that have taken place here. According to the 2010 Census about 6.3% of

Portland’s population was black and about 75% were white (census.gov 2018).

Historically, Portland’s black population has never exceeded 7% and Oregon’s has never

exceeded 2% (Gibson 2007) and Portland is the whitest metropolitan city in the United

States (Renn 2009 as cited by Hern 2016). While some may view such a homogenous

city as a poor place to study race, the racial projects and processes of racialization that

have occurred over the last two centuries have contributed to the overwhelming
 35
whiteness if Portland, making it an opportune place to study the impacts of that very

whiteness. One of the spaces that have become racialized over time as part of the process

of racial formation are Portland’s community gardens. These spaces will be the focus of

this research, and are introduced in the following and final section of this review.

Portland’s community gardens

The City of Portland operates more than 50 gardens via the Bureau of Portland

Parks and Recreation. Criticisms of the whiteness of alternative food spaces can easily be

applied to many of Portland’s community gardens, especially in those managed by PPR

where less than 2% of plot-holders identified as black in 2016 (Portland Parks and

Recreation 2016).

Table 1: Race/Ethnicity for PPR community garden plot-holders (2016) compared to (2010) Census Data

Race/Ethnicity % of PPR plot-holders % of Portland population

White 69.5 76.1
Black/African American 1.6 6.3
American Indian& Alaskan Native 0.3 1
Asian 7.6 7.1
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2 0.5
Hispanic or Latino 6.6 8.4
Other race 2.2 4.2
Multi-racial 4.4 4.7
Declined 7.4 -
*Due to some overlapping categories, census total exceeds 100%

Many of the community gardens under the purview of PPR were created with an

understanding of community gardens that is consistent with the literature on the

theoretical benefits community gardens provide. One example of this comes from a grant

recommendation from Friends of Portland Community Gardens, an outside organization

that works with the City’s program to further the development of community gardens
 36
throughout the city. A letter from one of the organizations Co-Chairs, sent to the City’s

Bureau of Housing and Community Development in support of a grant that the Portland

Community Garden Program applied for, claimed that “community gardening can play a

pivotal role in maintaining the stability and livability of our city and would be of special

value in an area deficient in clean, safe open space in this economically modest

neighborhood,” (Friends of Portland Community Gardens 1995). The City’s Community

Garden webpage states the following:

The Community Gardens program has provided gardening opportunities for the
physical and social benefit of the people and neighborhoods of Portland since
1975. There are 53 community gardens located throughout the city, developed
and operated by volunteers and Portland Parks and Recreation staff, offering a
variety of activities.” (Portland Community Gardens Program 2017).
Despite the seeming abundance of community gardens in Portland, applicants for

PPR’s community program are often put on a waiting list. Prices for plots range from

fifteen dollars for a 50 sq. foot “starter plot” to $200 for an 800 sq. foot plot. There are

also scholarship opportunities for low-income individuals that can cover up to 75%

percent of the cost, which have been distributed to more and more gardeners each year.

Participation in the garden requires adherence to a set of rules that can be found on their

website, and are also posted on bulletin boards at some gardens. Some of the practices in

the program, including enforcement strategies, are very elaborately planned out, as

pictured here.
 37
Figure 1: Portland Parks and Recreation Gardener Reminder Chart

There are an abundance of community gardens operating outside of the

jurisdiction of PPR as well, though the exact number is difficult to pin down. There are

two organizations in Portland that work to establish and operate community gardens

(Grow Portland and Outgrowing Hunger) as well as individual gardens operated by

community organizations, churches, and schools. There are also food justice projects and

spaces, similar to the ones described in the previous section, many of which have been

spearheaded by Portland’s black community. Some examples of these include the Urban

Harvest Garden (Urban League of Portland 2017), the June Key Delta Garden, and

MudBone Grown (Multnomah County 2017), which all work to empower the black

community and increase their access to healthy foods.

 38
The City of Portland has generally viewed the development of bike lanes and

community gardens as an improvement that would help overcome current “disparities”

(Mendes et al. 2008). While many people in Portland accept community gardens as a

regular and beneficial feature of the city, some residents (especially members of the black

community) view the community gardens as a symbol of gentrification, along with bike

lanes (Lubitow and Miller 2013; McClintock et al. 2018). Recent research in Portland has

found that UA, at least at the residential level, is directly tied to ongoing gentrification in

the city (McClintock et al. 2016; McClintock et al 2018). One individual from Portland

was quoted in a recent publication, saying “‘…the community gardens. That’s another

bad sign for the African American community. We always gardened. We always shared

our gardens and our food. We didn’t need ‘community gardens.’ That’s a white

invention’” (as quoted in Hern 2016:10). The black community’s turbulent history in

Portland, especially as it relates to past efforts at development, helps to explain this

perspective. This may be one of the factors leading to such a low number of black

individuals gardening in Portland’s community gardens, as they have come to symbolize

ongoing displacement and marginalization of the black community.

These conflicting understandings of what effect community gardens have in

Portland beckons inquiry into these topics, as well as an exploration of how these

interpretations influence black community gardeners. The CRT framework encourages

the valuing of experiential knowledge and the ‘voice of color’ shared by people of color

(Delgado and Stefancic 2017) and whiteness and its effects are usually invisible to whites

(Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017; Doane 2003). Black community gardeners will

therefore likely have the most valuable and informed perspectives on the way whiteness
 39
influences their participation. This research will also help to fill gaps in the literature

pointed out by previous scholars (Guthman 2008; Hoover 2013) who have called for the

inclusion of perspectives of marginalized groups in the study of UA, and a more thorough

understanding of how these individuals experience oppression in these spaces. Thus, this

study proceeds with the following research questions: (1) How do black individuals

experience community gardens in Portland, Oregon as racialized spaces? (2) How are

black gardeners’ practices and participation in urban agriculture in Portland influenced by

racism and whiteness? (3) In what ways do the features of a community garden influence

black individuals’ participation in Portland?

 40
3 RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

Of [the Souls of White Folk] I am singularly clairvoyant. I see in and

through them. I view them from unusual points of vantage. Not as a foreigner do I
come, for I am native, not foreign, bone of their thought and flesh of their language.
Mine is not the knowledge of the traveler or the colonial composite of dear
memories, words and wonder. Nor yet is my knowledge that which servants have of
masters, or mass of class, or capitalist of artisan. Rather I see these souls undressed
and from the back and side. I see the working of their entrails. I know their thoughts
and they know that I know. This knowledge makes them now embarrassed, now
furious. They deny my right to live and be and call me misbirth! My word is to them
mere bitterness and my soul, pessimism. And yet as they preach and strut and shout
and threaten, crouching as they clutch at rags of facts and fancies to hide their
nakedness, they go twisting, flying by my tired eyes and I see them ever stripped,—
ugly, human. (Du Bois 1995:453)

3.1 Project Design

While it had not yet been given the name, Du Bois was describing what can now

be referred to as the Outsider within Epistemology, which informs the methodological

approach of this research. While Du Bois may have written about this way of knowing

decades earlier, it was not until the 1980s that Patricia Hill Collins (1986) elaborated on

an epistemology unique to black women, and dubbed them ‘outsiders within’. Collins

recognized that black women’s outsider status within academia, as well as within society

at large, provided them within a special standpoint or “angle of vision” that generates

unique knowledge. The Outsider within Epistemology is similar in some ways to

Feminist Standpoint Epistemology (Harding 1986), although it takes more into account

the intersectional nature of oppression (Crenshaw 1995; Collins 2000), or what Collins

calls “interlocking oppressions” (Collins 1986). Sarah Harding (one of the leading
 41
scholars of Feminist Standpoint Epistemologies) was aware of the need for a more

intersectional approach and asked:

Can there be a feminist epistemological standpoint when so many women are

embracing ‘fractured identities’ as black women, Asian women, Native American
women, working-class women, lesbian women? Do not these identities undercut
the standpoint assumption that common experiences as women create identities
capable of providing the grounds for a distinctive epistemology and politics?
(1986:163)
For Collins, this standpoint was based on black women’s status as outsiders more so than

on the commonality of their experiences. Collins (2000) believed that this type of

knowledge should be institutionalized within Sociology as a way of uncovering aspects

of reality not readily visible using traditional approaches, and she is not the only scholar

in support of this type of epistemology.

George Yancy, a Philosopher of racism and whiteness claims that black

individuals make up an epistemological community. He asserts:

From the perspective of an oppressed and marginalized social position, Blacks do

in fact passes a level of heightened sensitivity to recognizable and repeated
occurrences that might very well slip beneath the radar of others who do not have
such a place and history in white dominant and hegemonic society. (Yancy
2017:23)
The Outsider within epistemology has been used in numerous other studies as well, to

explore the experiences of African American women firefighters (Yoder 1997), black

female college athletes (Bruening 2005), female principles (Hargreaves 1996) and

Mexican and Korean American youth (Kwon 2015). One researcher (Flores 2016) even

used the concept of the outsider within to conduct a reflexive analysis of how their own

identity, as an outsider within, influenced their data collection. As the literature

demonstrates, this epistemology is a powerful tool that can be adapted to various types of

qualitative research.
 42
Within the CRT framework, a very similar concept is referred to as counter-

storytelling, in which “counterstories” are used to challenge or dispute normative beliefs

and dominant narratives, often using a “voice of color” (Delgado and Stefancic 2017).

Multiple scholars (Daniels 2007; Reynolds and Mayweather 2017) have taken a novel

approach in critical studies of college education and combined these two concepts,

interviewing outsiders within and sharing their counterstories. This research employs a

similar approach, sharing the experiences of outsiders within in order to offer a narrative

that is counter to dominant beliefs about Portland and its community gardens. By

interviewing black community gardeners, this study aims to uncover information about

whiteness that is likely invisible or unrecognized by most white community gardeners,

who may view the world through the white gaze.

While interviews have previously been used to study community gardens (Glover

2004; Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny 2004; Shinew et al. 2004; Ohmer et al. 2009; Poulsen et

al. 2014) and other alternative food spaces (Pilgeram 2012; Guthman 2008; Alkon &

Vang 2016), much of this research has focused on mostly white samples. While some of

the previous research does include people of color (Glover 2004), these studies have been

less critical of power differentials and largely failed looked at the impact of whiteness on

people of color in these food spaces, excluding a small number of exceptions (i.e.

Ramirez 2014). Critical scholars of alternative food claim that more research is needed to

understand how and to what degree people of color experience exclusion in those spaces

(Guthman 2008), and how these spaces and the systems around them can become more

inclusive to people of color and ultimately less racist (Slocum 2007; Pilgeram 2012). This
 43
study seeks to fell this gap within the literature by highlighting the experiences and

sharing the knowledge of outsiders within the movement.

The Outsider within epistemology is also an ideal approach for exploring

whiteness because it helps to avoid the centering or essentializing of whiteness, which

has been one of the major pitfalls of previous whiteness studies. Some of the literature

has been critical of the over-application of whiteness to explore white identity, rather than

exploring how whiteness relates to power and oppression (Anderson 2003; Lewis 2003;

Yancy 2017). Yancy warned that white scholars must be especially careful to avoid re-

centering whiteness at the cost of losing touch with the “real world of weeping, suffering,

and traumatized black bodies impacted by [whiteness]” (2017:220). Anderson (2003)

noted that much of the literature tends to avoid “material realities” created by race and

that a stronger efforts needs to be focused on the racialized privilege generated by

whiteness. Lewis (2003) argued that studying whiteness is critical for the development of

racial equity, but agrees with Anderson (2003) that whiteness should be used to study

power relations rather than essentializing whiteness. Exploring the experiences and

perspectives of black community gardeners in regards to the whiteness of community

gardens helps to avoid this pitfall. It also helps to fill an important gap highlighted within

the literature (Slocum 2007, Guthman 2008, Pilgeram 2012), in which the effect the

whiteness of alternative food spaces have on black individuals and other people of color

have been generally neglected or overlooked.

 44
3.2 Data Collection

The data for this project was primarily gathered using semi-structured, in-depth

interviews of black and African American adult individuals who participate in

community garden spaces in Portland, Oregon. As outsiders within both Portland (a

mostly white city) and community gardens (a mostly white, alternative food space), these

individuals were asked about their experiences in the gardens (both negative and

positive), perceptions of the space and other gardeners, and also about the impact these

factors had on their activities, participation, and overall experience. As a means of

triangulation (Creswell & Miller 2000), I spent multiple periods of extended observation

at 10 community gardens (about 60 hours in total) in Portland and took field notes

detailing my observations and encounters with gardeners not included in the sample of

this study. While I visited many other gardens briefly, these 10 were the focus of my

observations. I initially aimed to spend more time at a select few gardens, but like some

previous researchers (Saldivar-Tanaka & Krasny 2004), I found that spending more time

at fewer gardens did not offer any better insight into their dynamics than did spending

shorter times at a larger number of gardens. This was especially true once gardens outside

the purview of PPR were included in the study, as the differences between gardens

became a valuable point for comparison, as opposed to the internal dynamics of only a

few gardens.
 45
Table 2: Research Sites, Participants, Observation, and Racial Coding

Research Site # of gardeners interviewed # of hours observed Black or white space?

Garden 1 (PPR) 2 5 W
Garden 2 (PPR) 1 6 W
Garden 3 (PPR) 1 7 W
Garden 4 (PPR) 1 8 W
Garden 5 2 4 B
Garden 6 (PPR) 1 6 W
Garden 7 2 7 -
Garden 8 (PPR) 1 4 W
Garden 9 (PPR) 1 4 W
Garden 10 2 8 B
* Three participants gardens were not observed

Figure 2: Map of Research Sites

 46
I had originally hoped to spend more time gardening alongside gardeners as a

participants, but I was only able to achieve this twice and most of my observation was

spent sitting or walking around the gardens. I collected field notes on my observations,

both before and after interviews, as well as during visits and periods of observations at

the gardens. In addition to the 17 interviews, I also had many interesting encounters with

gardeners and neighbors of gardens. While the experiences of the gardeners I interviewed

are the primary source of data, some of the findings I discuss in the next section are

largely informed by my own observations and these other secondary sources of data.

Information shared by the previous and current program directors of the PPR community

garden program and a review of grant documents for some of PPR’s gardens have

contributed to this study as well. These multiple sources of information provided me with

a nuanced understanding of Portland’s community gardens as well as insights into the

structure and ideologies of PPR’s community garden program.

The in-depth interviews were semi-structured, following an interview guide but

also allowing for deviation from the guide. Whenever possible I allowed the participant

to lead the interview, only referring to the guide as needed. Questions on the interview

guide were generated drawing on knowledge from previous research, and in an effort to

answer the research questions guiding this study. The interviewees were asked about their

experiences in the community garden, including questions about relationships with other

gardeners, their motivations for participation and how the garden affects them. They were

also asked questions about their lives that may relate to their experiences, such as how

long they have lived in Portland, if they live near their garden, and why they garden.

Finally, interviewees were asked about the racial dynamics of their garden and any
 47
changes they would make if they were able to. In an attempt at snowball sampling,

respondents were asked if they know any other black community gardeners that would

like to be interviewed.

Between August and December of 2017, a total of 17 gardeners from 13 different

gardens were interviewed at the interviewees’ garden or a nearby location, as preferred

by the interviewee. Participants were recruited using a purposive convenience sampling

approach and outreach included posting flyers at community gardens, publishing a

newspaper ad, emailing community garden managers, and snowball sampling. Several

participants were also recruited in person during periods of observation at some gardens.

The gardens of interest for observation and recruitment were initially identified using the

demographic data that the PPR community garden program had previously gathered,

which specified the race of each plot-holder. There were a total of 26 plot-holders who

identified as black, African, or African American during the 2016 growing season, and

the 6 gardens with two or more of these individuals were included as initial study sites.

Other gardens outside of the PPR system were eventually identified as potentially having

multiple black or African American community gardeners, and were included in

recruitment and observation efforts as well.

To maintain the confidentiality of the research subjects, all interviewees were

assigned a pseudonym to be used through the duration of the study. Informed consent

was granted by all participants, and all interviews were digitally recorded and fully

transcribed by the researcher or research assistant. The interviews ranged in length from

21 to 70 minutes, with an average of 41 minutes. Of the 17 individuals interviewed, 7

identified as black, 4 identified as African, 2 identified as African American, 3 identified

 48
with more than one race or ethnicity, and 1 simply identified as American. 6 of the

individuals in the sample identified as male, while the other 11 identified as female.

Interviewees ranged from 33 to 66 years old and the average age within the group was 46

years old. Other demographics, including highest level of education, relationship status,

household size, and estimated income all varied within the sample, as indicated in the

table below.

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics

Mean or
Frequency Frequency
Age 46 Education -
Household size 3.8 LTHS or HS 3
Female 11 Some College 6
Single 6 Bachelor’s Degree 4
Race/Ethnicity: - Graduate Degree 4
Black 7 2016 HH Income -
African American 2 <$10,00 2
African 4 $10,000 - $49,999 6
Mixed Race 3 $50,000 - $99,999 5
"American" 1 $100,000 or more 2

3.3 Data Analysis

The analysis of the data for this study proceeds using the general inductive

approach, which allows the researcher to “establish clear links between the evaluation or

research objectives and the summary findings derived from the raw textual data” and

offers a procedural way to analyze qualitative data that can generate valid and reliable

results (Thomas 2006:237). The use of this approach enables findings to develop from

intrinsic themes in the data without the restrictions imposed by some other, more

technical types of analysis. After transcribing the interviews (with some assistance), I

thoroughly read each transcript and all field notes. Next I created an initial coding

scheme, which focused on potential concepts that were relevant to the research questions,
 49
such as benefits, motivations, social inclusion, whiteness, racism, barriers, and exclusion.

Within these initial codes, sub codes were determined based on the readings of the

interviews and field notes.

Ultimately, this analysis aimed to offer an understanding of the shared

experiences of black individuals who participate in Portland’s community gardens. If

codes outside of this scheme emerged and became relevant to this goal, they were added

to the coding scheme. Field notes associated with specific interviews were coded with

their corresponding transcription. The coding process was conducted using Dedoose

coding software, and after coding was complete the coding scheme was refined to reduce

overlap and redundancy. Finally, I created thematic models to address my research

questions using the most relevant codes and information gathered through the coding

process. My final codebook included 33 codes in total, with 7 parent codes and 26 child

codes. The parent codes functioned as categories or themes that were then directly

incorporated into the findings in the following chapter, and supported with selected

quotes that were coded to those categories.

3.4 Advantages and Limitations

One of the expected limitations of using in-depth interviewing in this study was

the identity of the researcher. As a white male interviewing black individuals based on

their status as marginalized individuals, there were likely race of interviewer effects at

play. Ironically, my own status as an outsider within the community I was engaging may

have made participants less willing to divulge critical perspectives and opinions. This felt

especially true of the four African participants in the study, who had little to nothing
 50
critical to say about their experiences as community gardeners, mostly expressing their

gratitude for being given access to such a space. Similarly, because of the historical and

ongoing displacement of the black community in Portland, which is now largely

personified by young white gentrifiers, my age may have also had a negative impact as I

was younger than any of my interviewees. Finally, my lack of immersion in the

community of community gardening and urban agricultural previous to this study may

have further cast me as an outsider to those who were more involved. While this study

was an important one that yielded valuable results, an older person of color who was

previously engaged in the urban garden community would likely have been able to access

an even greater amount of information.

This methodological approach also has its advantages. The largely white

population in Portland makes it an exceptional location for exploring the concept of

whiteness and its impact on black individuals. Though Portland’s black community is

much smaller (and now more dispersed) than many other urban cities, they are an

extremely resilient one with a bounty of outspoken community members and a well-

documented history in the city and state. With active organizations like the Urban

League, NAACP, and the Portland African American Leadership Forum (PAALF) it is

obvious that the black community continues to demand a voice in Portland. Additionally,

a focus on the Outsider within Epistemology prevents this research from centering and

essentializing whiteness, which has been a pitfall in previous studies of whiteness.

 51
4 FINDINGS: WHITENESS AND PORTLAND’S COMMUNITY GARDENS

In this chapter, I will argue that many community gardens in Portland are white

spaces. They can be understood as such by their observed congruence with previous

literature, and by the way this whiteness is experienced by the black community

gardeners I interviewed. Aside from the two gardens I spent time observing that

identified as explicitly black garden spaces, the rest of the gardens included in this

research were ultimately white gardens. For many of the black gardeners I interviewed,

the racialization of these gardens influenced their participation in them. Several black

gardeners described having avoided gardens they perceived as white and several of the

individuals I interviewed had left their community garden (or moved to a different one)

because of direct oppressive experiences related to whiteness, such as microagressions

and cultural marginalization.

Despite that nearly all interviewees who had gardened in a white space described

being aware of this whiteness to some extent, there were several gardeners who actively

chose to ignore or tolerate it. In these cases, the individual gardeners’ level of

engagement with the space varied from heavy engagement, to mostly keeping to

themselves. While not all interviewees were equally explicit in the way they described

the whiteness of the gardens, some gardeners had no problem providing that verbatim

description. While discussing the community gardens nearby in the Albina neighborhood,

Tamica said “there's another garden that may be ten blocks away from there. I think that's

in a Portland Park and Rec space, and that's very white as well.” This is an example of

how gardens can be perceived or coded as white, even without directly engaging them.
 52
Through sharing my own observations and the experiences of the gardeners I

interviewed, I aim to demonstrate the whiteness of many of Portland’s community

gardens and some of the ways whiteness impacts black community gardeners.

4.1 Observations of Whiteness

As suggested in previous research (Slocum 2007; Guthman 2008; Pilgeram 2012;

Yancy 2017), these spaces become coded as white by the bodies that inhabit them and the

values, objectives, and strategies they espouse. Scholars have suggested that this is a

product and a process of white privilege (Pulido 2000; Kobayashi and Peake 2000), as

the large number of white bodies inhabiting these spaces reinforces white privilege, while

it is simultaneously a result of the privileged status of many of the white gardeners. The

gardens I spent time observing rarely had more than a few gardeners present at once, but

it was usually white individuals I would find in the gardens or near them. One stark

exception to this was one of the gardens I observed in North Portland which was centered

in the middle of a park that was usually bustling with people of color, most of whom

were black. However, the only two black gardeners in the garden were a couple who had

recently moved the US from Africa. The rest of the gardeners I observed and spoke to in

that garden were white, and many of them drove in from outside of the neighborhood.

Even in this neighborhood, which had a large and visible African American population,

the community garden was a white space.

The three PPR community gardens located in Albina (which I originally imagined

would be of great import for this research) were unfortunately not included in the gardens

I observed, because they were almost completely populated by white gardeners, with no
 53
gardeners identifying as black or African American in 2016 (Portland Parks and

Recreation 2016). A manager of one of these gardens confirmed that this was also the

case in 2017, in a reply to my recruiting email that stated that there were only white

gardeners in their garden. Even the few PPR gardens that had larger numbers of people of

color often had white managers, which has been a point of contention in previous

research on community gardens, in which white leadership has been ill-suited to

understand the needs, concerns, and values of the gardeners of color they oversee

(Hoover 2013; Passidimo 2014; Bowens 2015). One of the gardeners I interviewed

provided an interesting exception to this pattern. That individual, who identified as black,

was the manager of his PPR community garden and the majority of the other gardeners

were Eastern European. Despite the fact that most of these gardeners did not speak

English, this garden appeared just as white as many of the other PPR gardens at first

glance. While seemingly trivial, this specific instance demonstrates the malleability of

whiteness (Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017; Bonilla-Silva 2003), which allows certain

groups to ‘pass’ or be perceived as white (Pulido 2000) and possibly reap some of the

benefits associated with white privilege.

Another way in which I was able to observe the whiteness of the gardens was

through my interactions with other white community gardeners. Multiple white

individuals demonstrated their white privilege by reaching out to me directly with their

criticisms of my research. There were concerns about the imagery used on my flyers (a

green fist above farm rows: the logo for the Black Farmers and Urban Gardens

Conference) and the “divisive nature” of my project. Multiple white individuals claimed

that it was unnecessary, or that I would get a biased (and somehow less valuable)
 54
perspective by only including black individuals and that I should take a more neutral

(read: colorblind) approach. While these views may not have been harbored with

malicious intent, their embodiment by garden participants and leaders perpetuates

ongoing structural racism and defends the white privilege embedded into these spaces.

The officiousness expressed by these individuals further highlights the white privilege at

play, which makes whites feel entitled to have control over the spaces they inhabit. These

unsolicited criticisms also demonstrate how these beliefs are built into white normativity

and the white gaze in way that yields the whiteness of these spaces as invisible to most

white gardeners, as well as to garden management and staff (though some may obviously

be more cognizant than others).

While the current director and staff of PPR’s community garden program are

making efforts to make the community gardens more equitable (which are discussed in

more detail below), the underlying color-blindness (Gooding-Williams and Mills 2014;

Bonilla-Silva 2015) of the PPR community garden system may be reinforcing the

whiteness of Portland’s gardens. Color-blindness, as described in the literature review, is

an ideology that ignores race-based differences in experiences and outcomes between

whites and people of color, resulting in “raceless explanations for all sorts of race-related

affairs” (Bonilla-Silva 2015:1364). This ideology is coupled, by the majority of white

Americans, with the belief that racial justice has been fully achieved in the US, and that

therefore no further efforts are needed to address racial disparities (Gooding-Williams

and Mills 2014). These views have been embedded in the PPR system and broader social

institutions in society in a way that makes these efforts quite challenging. While these

efforts can have some impact on the overall dynamics of the gardens, individual
 55
perspectives are less easily influenced by efforts at inclusion or even policy changes

within PPR’s community garden program.

One of the individuals who contacted me about their concern over my research

was the former coordinator of the community garden program, who played a pivotal role

in the proliferation of community gardens in Portland for over two decades. She informed

me that PPR’s community garden program “adheres to policies of inclusion, fairness and

understanding of long time inequities in the cultural mix,” but was clear that the gardens

were not political spaces to be used for the pursuit of justice (Pohl 2017). I found an

interview with this same individual as part of Portland State University’s Sustainability

History Project, which has been ongoing since 2006. The interview took place in 2009, a

couple years before the position was turned over to the current program coordinator. In

the interview, she suggested that “the gardens belong to the people,” who should be

involved in the process of developing and creating gardens. However, when discussing

those who might be opposed to community gardens she also said:

There is a minority of people who might be nay-sayers, that don’t like the looks of
a community garden or don’t get how it works or the beauty of it or the magic of
it, and their loud voices really bother me. I have to just sort of understand that
they just haven’t been affected by and they don’t see the value, but I wish they
would. (Pelling 2009)
While the previous coordinator may not have been explicitly referencing black

individuals with this comment, her unwillingness to consider marginal perspectives and

her solipsism regarding the value of a community gardens are exemplars of the white

gaze, which often leads white individuals to feel that they should ‘show the way’ for

people of color (Slocum 2007; Guthman 2008; Hoover 2013; Passidimo 2014). While
 56
individuals who hold these beliefs may not have deliberate intentions of upholding

racism, the persistence of this way of thinking perpetuates the structures which do so.

As mentioned above, PPR is aware that there is some concern over the racially

equitable distribution of its gardens and their benefits, a conclusion possibly drawn from

the awareness of this and other research, concerns from the community, or a combination

of both. At some point between the February of 2017 and February of 2018 the

Community Garden Program added the following statement to the homepage of their

website:

Portland Community Gardens is committed to the overall Citywide vision

that race will have no detrimental effect on people of color, refugee and
immigrant communities in accessing our community gardens, or from the
benefit of our services. We recognize that achieving racial equity will take time,
with dedicated leadership and commitment by managers and staff. We
acknowledge, understand and encourage celebration of the differences that
surround us. Equity, inclusion and diversity are vital to Portland Parks &
Recreation’s ideals and values. (Portland Community Garden Program 2017;
2018)

Additionally, PPR was collecting race and ethnicity data from individuals who accessed

its services in order to track and improve these outcomes. After two years though, they

halted the collection of this information for any of their programs, partly in reaction to the

heightened racial climate and community concerns that this information would be used

against them (Niemi 2018).

The community garden program has been making efforts to address some of the

concerns. For example, they conducted interpreted “listening sessions” with several of

the largest non-English speaking groups that were currently utilizing the gardens, and

then made policy changes to try and make the gardens more accessible to those and other

marginalized groups. However, no listening session was held for African American
 57
gardeners. This was apparently due to the low number of African American individuals

currently accessing PPR’s community gardens (Niemi 2018). These listening sessions

highlighted a number of ways that marginalized groups might be made to feel more

welcome in the gardens, including clearer and better regulated plot boundaries and

walkways. The community garden program staff moved towards more strictly enforcing

the updated rules after the listening sessions took place, in an effort to make the gardens

more inclusive for those less represented groups. It was mostly white gardeners who

pushed back against this enforcement though, as they had been previously been allowed

more freedom in the gardens (Niemi 2018). This is an excellent example of how efforts to

move towards a more equitable or just model are often resisted by whites who (whether

knowingly or not) aim to retain their privilege. Many of the black gardeners I interviewed

also experience white resistance in additional ways, which will be discussed in more

detail towards the end of the next section.

4.2 Experiences of Black Gardeners

While many of the community gardens (and the community garden system more

broadly) can be coded as white through my own observations and experiences, the

experiences of the black community gardeners I interviewed most effectively

demonstrate the whiteness of these spaces, and the way this whiteness impacts black

community gardeners. When discussing the ways they experienced whiteness within

community gardens, there was a wide range of responses from very explicit acts of

whiteness to more general effects of being in a white space. Several gardeners described

that despite appearing subtle, the impacts of whiteness are still detrimental. Henry
 58
explained that “I don't think that anyone has been over aggressive but the

microaggressions, you could feel them just the same, if not even more.” This subtleness

contributes to the invisibility of whiteness to most white individuals (Delgado and

Stefancic 1997, 2017; Doane 2003) who are the most common perpetrators of racial

microaggressions. Other gardeners also described experiencing microaggressions in their

gardens, including being treated as unskilled or inferior, having their cultural preferences

mocked or minimized, and being treated as a threat or security risk in the garden.

The two most common expressions of whiteness that were generally experienced

among the gardeners I interviewed were the normative whiteness of the gardens and the

white gaze of the individuals who inhabit them. These two aspects often functioned in

concert within the gardens, as previously suggested in the literature. The gardeners I

interviewed also experienced whiteness through structural oppression and resistance from

white individuals, which are both regularly connected to white privilege. While these

experiences were quite common among the African American and black individuals who

were born in the US, they were not equally expressed by the few gardeners I interview

who had recently moved here from Africa. These four gardeners seemed hesitant to say

anything critical or negative about their experiences, and their general attitudes can be

best illustrated by Samira’s response to my inquiry into any negative experiences she

may have had at the garden. Samira claimed that there was not a single negative

experience she could think of, stating that “everything was good. Everything was good,

good, good. I have nothing bad to say.”

 59
White normativity

As discussed in the literature review, whiteness is normative in the way it

marginalizes the culture of people of color (Delgado and Stefancic 1997, 2017; Bonilla-

Silva 2003; Doane 2003; Yancy 2017). The white gaze reinforces white normativity by

viewing other ways of knowing or being as less legitimate, and casting black individuals

as less knowledgeable, incapable, or even criminalistic (Du Bois 1995; Omi and Winant

2015; Delgado and Stefancic 2017; Yancy 2017). Zawiya, a plot holder at a PPR garden,

pointed out that the white normativity of these spaces was not as much uninviting as it

was unappealing to black gardeners (and possibly other gardeners of color):

I wouldn't say they're not inviting. I would say that- I mean this is gonna sound
like a pretty harsh rebuke, but people just don't want to be around white people
who want the discussion, the produce, the culture to be about white things. It's not
that their unwelcoming, it's just that their undesirable.
Normativity also functions to marginalize the culture of black gardeners in white gardens,

both through a lack of representation of that culture and through direct acts of minimizing

or othering that culture. An example of how this can occur was offered by Zawiya:

In the late fall I plant collard greens and mustard greens for my Thanksgiving
meal and I constantly get the question, "Well kale-" This happened to me the
other day, that someone said, "oh that's not a part of the Thanksgiving tradition"
and I'm like "get out of here with that.”
While this comment may not have been made with malicious intent, the invisibility of

whiteness masks the way this type of perspective devalues the culture of nonwhite groups

and individuals, who may or may not choose to celebrate Thanksgiving with foods that

represent their own culture and identity. Thus, the white gaze is regularly experienced in

the form of microagressions like these in community gardens.

 60
Some gardeners who rented plots in PPR gardens experienced the white

normativity of the garden through being treated as an outsider or intentionally excluded

from the garden’s social network. Lisa provided an example of this when she indicated

that she felt that she may have been intentionally left out of social gatherings:

They post if there's a potluck or something but I have a sense that people know
each other here and they... I don't know if they just are friendly with each other or
what? I know some people are part of the same family but it seems like, I know
there's an email list or there're emails that go out. They're like, "Oh, you didn't get
that email?" I'm like, "no, I didn't get that email."
This type of exclusion contributes to the whiteness and “viscosity” (Slocum and Saldanha

2013; Ramirez 2014) of these spaces, which makes them seem impermeable to people of

color. While black individuals may be able to gain access to the physical space of

community gardens in Portland, gaining access to the social networks of the mostly white

gardeners may prove to be more of a challenge. This yet another way in which white

privilege and normativity reinforce the whiteness of these spaces.

Beyond the whiteness of individual garden spaces, Oregon’s food system is also

racialized through white normativity. Participants who discussed this topic in the

interview often noted that this was the result of historical processes, or the racial

formation of Portland. Cherise had originally attempted to complete the Beginning Urban

Farmers Apprenticeship (BUFA), which is a training program that individuals pay for to

learn about urban farming in Oregon. However, part way through the program she

decided to drop out after finding that:

The food system here in Oregon is dominated by a lot of white folks. So even
though there's other communities that have been doing the work, it's just like for
us… well for me, I guess I'll speak for myself. It just wasn't- didn't feel like it was
a good fit. You know, it's just the same thing over and over again, whether you go
to university or you go to the BUFA program or you know, working at the county,
 61
you're just in a very white space and kind of those microaggressions and things
like that seem to pop up quite a bit.
Cherise also went on to explain that most of the people in the program, in addition to

being white, also had access to or ownership of land in which to apply the skills they

were learning. This is also a process of Oregon’s racial formation, in which black

individuals were systemically prevented from owning property in nearly all parts of the

state. While her (white) Mother’s side of her family has had possession of agricultural

land in Oregon dating back 4 generations, Cherise has been unable to gain access to it.

The white gaze

The other most commonly experienced expression of whiteness that the gardeners

I interviewed described experiencing was the white gaze, which is a standpoint or way of

looking at the world that is founded in white solipsism and embedded with racist myths,

through which non-white individuals and their culture are viewed as less valuable or

legitimate (Du Bois 1995; Kobayashi and Peake2000; Omi and Winant 2015; Yancy

2017). The white gaze was experienced in physical form by several gardeners, who

expressed some experience of being watched or looked at excessively, or differently than

other gardeners. Lisa expressed the feeling that an expectation of being inferior

accompanied the experience of being watched by white gardeners:

I haven't quite figured out why yet but they're- they're very curious. Like they
observe you a lot, like you’re being watched from the second you walk in. I was
being watched anyway; I don't know about anyone else's experience, but they
watch you. I think there's an assumption that you maybe know less than you do.
Lisa believed that people watched her for security reasons and because they wanted to

make sure she knew the rules. These notions of having to follow the rules came up in
 62
many of the interviews. The combination of normativity and the white gaze often resulted

in what felt like an environment of surveillance for black gardeners, especially when

combined with the enforcement of rules that gardeners must agree to in order to acquire a

plot within the PPR system. Andreka expressed that this feeling was directly related to

being black in a white space, both inside and outside of the PPR system:

And one thing I noticed even in the community garden and in this free garden is
that I was the only Black people that gardened. We were the only Black family.
So with me, it's like you really have to be on your Ps and Qs.
This type of surveillance may be one the bigger barriers for black individuals,

especially those who are new or returning to gardening. Cherise explained that she had

heard from other black gardeners that the enforcement of the rules was problematic and

created a barrier for some black families:

I think the policing of people just trying to grow food is probably a major factor. I
have heard from people who feel like whoever’s managing those community
gardens… they get talked to if they don't garden the way that whoever the
organization is perceives that they should do it. Yeah they have specific rules like,
oh you got too many weeds. And that's not really a good way to deal with
community members where maybe they have different skill sets, where maybe it's
there first time gardening, and then it turns them off from even wanting to
participate in things like that. And that's maybe one of the reasons why some of
the Black families don't want to participate in some of those community gardens.
One of the central tenets of CRT is that racism is an ordinary experience for

people of color, and that it is pervasive in our society (Delgado and Stefancic 2017).

Even when black garden spaces are established within proximity of white gardens or

within white neighborhoods, they still face the effects of white normativity and the

accompanying white gaze. Tamica noted that her most negative experiences while

working in one of Portland’s black garden spaces were, “folks giving us looks, being in

the garden in that area that's just really white.” Her awareness of the white gaze, even in a
 63
black garden space, is a testament to its pervasiveness. Henry is involved in a black

garden space that is very near another white community garden, and his experience

demonstrated the way the white gaze and white normativity not only generated tensions

between the two groups, but also created a power dynamic that emboldened some white

individuals to question their right to even be accessing the land in the first place:

That community garden has been operating for eight years and then all of a
sudden they see myself and this rag-tag group of volunteers that don't look like
them and don't carry themselves like them, like they know exactly what they're
doing and so we've had some instances where people basically questions why
we're here; what constitutes us being in the space. Like, “what have you done?
What do you know? Are you a Master Gardener?”
This another example of the white gaze being accompanied by expectations of inferiority,

as a product of what Case (2012) referred to as “deficit-oriented narratives” and

stereotypes that have been embedded into the white gaze over time. Henry described

these encounters and these stereotypes as forms of microaggressions. The presence of the

white gaze and accompanying microagressions, even in a black garden space, further

demonstrates the pervasiveness of race and racism and the racialized nature of

community gardening.

Structural oppression

Portland’s racial formation has always involved the oppression of the black

community, as is highlighted in Portland’s racialized history and the ongoing

displacement of the black community. This has left many individuals in the black

community with too little time, money, property, and other resources to engage in

community gardening. This lack of resources has also created a barrier for the
 64
development of black garden spaces in Portland. Albert, a PPR community gardener who

is the sole black gardener in his garden, noted that he lives in an “upwardly-mobile, upper

income neighborhood.” He went on to note that, “except for apartments in the area, it's

going to look pretty white and pretty non-immigrant.” Albert recognized that his class

status as a well-educated, gainfully employed homeowner allowed him a certain amount

of privilege that many black individuals in Portland do not have access to, and that this

was part of the reason he felt comfortable in his garden, despite its whiteness.

The most common barrier to developing black garden spaces and engaging in

community gardening that were regularly mentioned by the gardeners I interviewed was a

lack of resources, including time, money, and land access. This barrier can be understood

as a direct result of broader forces of institutional oppression that have historically

disadvantaged the black community in Portland, in combination with the ongoing

displacement that is a direct result of this oppression. Interviewees regularly made

connections between these limited resources and broader systemic racism, which

continues to plague Portland’s black community. As explained by Donna:

It wasn't even until 2000 that we could- they would let [black individuals] even
move outside of the perimeter of North and Northeast Portland unless you were
recruited here by a major corporation or you had intermediaries. So the
institutional, structural racism that is practiced here in the state prevents us from
being able to be, you know, get resources, execute, implement.
While not all gardeners were as explicit in identifying structural racism as a barrier, they

were able to identify many of the effects of this form of oppression. Cherise described

how the cost of a garden plot along with the other costs of maintaining that plot may be a

big enough barrier to keep many black families who are facing economic hardship (often

as a result of ongoing oppression) from participating in community gardening:

 65
I don't know if they cost anything for Portland Parks and Rec but I feel like if
you're in survival mode and you're working, you're trying to make ends meet,
having a community garden could be the last thing on your list. If you're just
trying to get your family stable, I mean even if it is a benefit like I could save
money or things like that, you may not be thinking about that.
Other participants echoed this sentiment, including Andreka who focused specifically on

homelessness and poverty as issues that the black community is currently facing:

But our dilemma is most of the time we're in crisis and we're just worried about
the next day. We're not looking to think about future, weeks down the line,
because that's just not where we're at right now. We're looking to survive right
now, like "I need a place right now," or "I need food right now." I am not talking
about spending 100 dollars to grow some stuff and I may not have time.
As previously discussed, many of Portland’s community gardens can be perceived

as white simply by being located in a predominantly white neighborhood. This process is

no doubt amplified by the recent waves of gentrification that have whitened the few

neighborhoods of color that previously existed in Portland. Several interviewees made the

direct connection between gentrification and the whiteness of gardens themselves. Sarah,

another sole black PPR gardener, noted that all the new apartments and condos would

continue to “restrict diversity” in her garden, unless people of color from the outer areas

could be somehow incentivized to commute to the inner-city gardens. Discussing the

same topic, Henry noted that if a garden is not in an individual's community, they are

likely to feel that, “this is not really a place for me,” and Tamica similarly concluded that,

“walking around and feeling like an oddball sometimes here doesn't make you really

want to stay here.” Jeff shared his thoughts on how the impacts of gentrification might be

related to exclusion from gardens located in recently gentrified neighborhoods:

You know since the demographics have shifted so much, you know people are
just feeling- you know there were a lot of folks that were feeling less welcome
you know, in the neighborhood they grew up in. When they walk in a restaurant
 66
and people look at them like- they feel like, "why are you here?" kind of thing.
And so I don't know if I would extend to gardens or not.
Land or property as a resource was discussed commonly as a barrier, not only in

regards to home ownership, but in regards to establishing black garden spaces. Having

ownership or access to the space in which a community’s food is grown and being able to

make decisions about how that food is grown is central to the concept of food

sovereignty. In connection to discussions of land access, several gardeners expressed a

desire to have more than a black community garden, but rather a black community farm

where more substantial amounts of food could be grown by and for the black community.

Henry shared his desire to move from the space they currently leased to privately owned

land, but that this is especially challenging in Portland:

I mean I feel like we actually need access to more land as we're growing because
there’s community members that are like, hey I'd like to garden or I'd like to farm
but, you know, there's only three fourth of an acre that we're really growing on so
for us I think it's land access. And the whole thing around like community gardens
and leasing property, I mean you're leasing it and so if you look at national
programs, you know, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to be on that property
forever. So for us, we're really trying to own a land. And so I think that's- that's
our biggest need and there's a real problem with land access here.
Henry went on to say that despite his desire to move into a larger and more permanent

space that the black community could still benefit from temporary access to land if the

city were to make it available. He asked, “Gresham, Portland- they have all these spaces

that pretty much sit dormant and if they don't have any immediate need for it, why not

give it to the community that is underserved and in need?” These sentiments were echoed

by Jay, who emphasized the need for access to good land, “the city of Portland could just

give over some of the best land ever, and like there's some amazing land. Like they own

so much land. Like, don't give the shittiest land over to someone.” Considering previous
 67
examples of environmental racism in Portland, such as the relegating of the black

community to Vanport City, Jay’s concerns are not unfounded.

Despite the passion of the black community in their pursuit of creating and

sustaining black garden spaces, structural racism has definitely impeded the development

of black gardens in Portland. According to Donna, “We had I would say 50% of what we

needed, meaning we had the people the passion and the energy but I would say you still

need resources, right?” Gentrification has also taken a toll on black garden spaces that

have already been established, as the community that could have sustained them was

rapidly displaced by white individuals. I visited two of the black garden spaces in the

Albina area and found them mostly barren or overgrown with weeds, though periodic

work parties did take place at one. However, there is at least one black garden space that

is thriving in Portland, and several others that seem to serving people of color particularly

well. While the barriers created by institutional oppression will likely persist, so too will

the efforts of the black community at creating and sustaining black garden spaces for

Portland’s black community.

White resistance

The final way in which whiteness was commonly experienced by the gardeners I

interviewed, especially when discussing creating or developing black garden spaces, was

resistance from white individuals or organizations. This type of reaction to programs or

places exclusively intended to benefit black individuals or other people of color is

common amongst white individuals who harbor post-racial beliefs or a colorblind

perspective, and therefore think that providing unique opportunities for the black
 68
community or black individuals is unnecessary or unfair. Cherise had even experienced

people calling a training program uniquely for people of color a form of reverse racism,

claiming that it was unfair that white individuals could not participate:

I think one thing was when we really blasted it out there that we were gonna come
up with this training program, there was a little push back where people felt like it
was reverse racism. You know, "why are we creating this program for only people
of color?" So we did get some backlash from some people that felt like it's not fair
that they can't participate in it.
While some black garden spaces in other cities have been exclusively for black

individuals, that is not the general trend in Portland. Henry informed me that there were

misconceptions about this at his garden space, but that he tried to make it known that

while they do focus on supporting the black community, the space is open to people of

any race or nationality. This common misconception often encourages white individuals

to resist the establishment of these spaces.

Cherise explained that she was worried that other, mostly white organizations

have been receiving grant funding to work with people of color might be critical of their

efforts or try to piggyback off of their work in some way. Henry echoed these feelings as

well:

I think that there are some organizations that have basically been facilitating these
types of things for our community and now that they’re seeing we've had people
reach out and basically do trainings with them, so that they can continue to do it,
rather than just supporting us, rather than just coming and empowering us and
saying "hey, you guys are doing really good at this.” So why not for us, by us?
You understand what I'm saying? Why can't they just kind of support us to work
with our own community?
These perspectives were dually informed by these individuals’ previous lived experiences

with whiteness and collective understanding of whiteness, as it functions to maintain

white privilege.
 69
Andreka pointed out how white resistance to black gardens or programs

specifically for black individuals, is hypocritical in a place where so many services and

supports are provided to other marginalized groups:

We can't have a place that solely serves African Americans because we are racist
or it's not ethically right. But you can have like the Pacific Islanders that
specifically serves Pacific Islanders. Or you can have like IRCO that serviced,
you know the refugees that are coming here so that they're tailored to their needs.
I mean like I guess they feel like we're American- you know, you guys are
Americans you should just be able to boom right on in and used the same services
that everyone else does, but that's not so. So I can send an African to IRCO so
they can get services that are culturally specific. Where other people are that
know their cultural background, that know how they parent, that they know how
they eat, they know the foods that they're eating.
Indeed, all four of the African gardeners I interviewed had been introduced to their

garden through some outside organization that aimed to improve their well-being by

connecting them to culturally relevant foods and activities or simply through access to

growing food. When I asked Margaret (with the help of an interpreter) how she found out

about the garden she informed me that “I didn't find it by myself. Somebody else got it

for me. It's far from where I live but I like it. Because I have a passion for it I don't mind

about the distance.” Similarly, Nassim informed me that the offices at the community she

lived in helped her gain access to her garden plot:

The office here give me. Yeah, you know one time I come in here. I live close to
here, in this area. And then my husband say "I want to garden, you know. Always
I do the garden. I need to do garden." Then they say "ok, ok." Then they give me
garden.
Rashid also gained access to his garden through the community organization that helped

him find his home and job, and Samira was invited to her community garden by a

community health worker who visited her at her home. These individuals were also given

seeds in addition to the cost of their plots being covered. The garden where both Samira
 70
and Margaret had plots (garden #7) was almost entirely populated by non-English

speaking immigrants. However, the leadership was mostly white and the volunteers that

worked at this garden were also white, so this garden was the only research site which I

chose not to code as a white or black space. This was not the case for any of the African

American gardeners I interviewed, who all made independent efforts to make community

gardening a part of their life. It may be an important for future research to dig deeper into

this phenomenon, and ask why it is that the colorblind ideology seems to weaken in

regards to immigrants and refugees, as compared to other people of color who are born

and raised in the US.

Finally, Jay lamented that it was not just the creation of physical spaces that have

been met with white resistance but also broader, more strategic efforts on behalf of the

black community:

We were talking about policy a lot of times too, so we had different people at
different tables and we would report out on what we’re hearing on different things
and we also would kind of set an agenda for black people to advocate on food
issues in the city of Portland and Multnomah County. So I mean we were thinking
powerfully about how we could influence things but like at the end of the day I
felt like all of our recommendations, all of our advice and everything, just got
completely shut- like shut up and destroyed. You know like the Multnomah
County Food Action Plan got destroyed and erased from history; it's not even in
existence anymore.
In this example, Jay does not explicitly state that it was white individuals that resisted

these efforts, though his earlier discussion of the City and Multnomah County made it

clear that he viewed these as entities led by and consisting of largely whites. Further,

Jay’s recounting of this experience demonstrates the way policies that support white

supremacy are often favored within Portland and Multnomah County, while the efforts of

people of color who advocate for food justice are overlooked or ignored. This has
 71
historically been the case for many institutions in Oregon, as demonstrated by Gibson

(2007), Bates et al. (2014), and Burke and Jeffries (2016). In Portland, housing,

employment, education, and food policies have all been shaped to benefit white

individuals and the expense of black and other people of color. Thus, the white resistance

to black garden spaces and garden programs for people of color works largely in defense

of white privilege (whether or not that is the intention) and reinforces the institutional

oppression and racism that already exists within the city of Portland.

In this chapter I argued that many of Portland’s community gardens are coded as

white and demonstrated that black community gardeners regularly experience or perceive

them as white spaces, which limits or deters their participation in the gardens. While I

was unable to visit all of the gardens in Portland, my encounters and observations at

several gardens, combined with the perspectives and experiences of the gardeners I

interviewed, effectively demonstrate the whiteness of Portland’s community gardens.

Through the mechanisms of ideological color blindness, white normativity (both within

the gardens and at a broader systemic level in the city and state), and the white gaze,

these spaces have been experienced and coded as white spaces. Additionally, black

community gardeners experienced whiteness in the form of resistance to black garden

space. Many of the gardens managed by PPR that I did not spend time at consisted of all

or mostly white plot-holders, and were likely as readily coded as white as the majority of

the gardens I did observe. There were a few exceptions in East Portland, where a few

gardens have a small number of white gardeners, though they are mostly inhabited by

Latinx and Asian plot-holders. In some of the gardens managed by other organizations,

and in PPR’s Woods Community Garden, there are growing numbers of African
 72
immigrant gardeners as well. While these small signs of progress are hopeful for the

overall equity of Portland’s community gardening scene, the black community remains

marginalized by whiteness within the majority of community gardens in Portland and

their efforts at creating black garden spaces continue to be impeded by structural

oppression and white resistance.

 73
5 FINDINGS: BLACK GARDENERS AND BLACK FOOD SPACES

In this chapter, I will argue that the concerns motivating many black community

gardeners, including food justice and the desire to resist oppression, made particular

garden spaces more appealing. Further, gardeners acknowledged how the presence of

other black gardeners, black leadership, and a focus on black identity or black culture

were essential in order to pursue these motivations. The gardeners I interviewed also

generally implied that these attributes needed to function together to enable black

community gardeners to pursue those motivations. Some gardeners individually made the

connection between these specific motivations, and the small number of black individuals

participating in PPR community gardens. For example, Zawiya suggested that “I think

the question of why people are doing it would shine a light on some reasons why there

are so few [black individuals] in the public garden system.”

Similarly to the previous chapter, the four African immigrants included in this

study were generally an exception to these findings. They made no mention of either

gardening to work towards food justice or as an act of resistance, and tended to be

motivated by different concerns. These gardeners primarily used gardening as a way to

get to know other people or because it was already a regular part of their life before

moving to the US. Nassim informed me of the primary reason she had a community

garden plot, saying “I meet a lot of people. I see a lot of vegetables grow, so that's nice.”

Rashid expressed a similar sentiment, saying, “I find here a lot of people and they work

together like friends. I see people happy and making friends. I see people and happy and

talking, and talking sometime like it's a story.” Rashid also informed me that he used to
 74
work on a farm and that everyone grew food back in Chad, where he moved from.

Margaret echoed these thoughts, claiming that for her it was also because she used to be a

farmer and enjoyed growing food. Additionally, Margaret shared that she gardened for

health reasons, saying:

I have a chronic disease, diabetes, that requires me to do more exercise and this is
one way. With the condition I have, the diabetes, I am advised to eat more greens.
That will help with my disease so that's why I am doing this.
While their motivations and desires for gardening are no less important than those

discussed in the rest of this chapter, it is noteworthy that their motivations were distinctly

different from the interviewees who had been born and raised in the US. Black

individuals who have only recently moved to the country may be less aware of the issues

in the US that motivate the pursuit of food justice, and their experiences with oppression

are likely very different from those who are born in the US. These different histories and

experiences of oppression likely lead to different forms of resistance, that are beyond the

scope of this study.

5.1 Food Justice

The concept of food justice or food sovereignty was discussed by several of the

gardeners I interviewed. Some interviewees used those terms explicitly, while others

discussed individual aspects that are central to food justice or food sovereignty.

Specifically, black community gardeners discussed being motivated by desires to

empower the black community, achieve greater involvement of community members, and

establish more individual and community agency in the provision of food. Some

interviewees saw community gardens as a platform for other social justice efforts as well,
 75
such as Antonio, who expressed a desire for his fellow community gardeners to do work

beyond the garden:

I think that's something I'd like to do though, is like have everybody team up
again for like, some of those community projects. The city does like a lot of like
volunteer projects and stuff like that and I guess that all counts towards
community service hours that we all have to do at the garden to stay valid.
Several interviewees also made connections between their motivations and historical

Black Power movements, or what Pulido (2016) has referred to as the Black Radical

Tradition. For example, Jay connected his desires for a food justice focus to efforts

previously put forth by the Black Panthers:

There was no breakfast program ever before the Black Panthers showed the
country how it can be done. I always thought food was empowering, and using the
same concept that the Black Panthers had, I wanted to use the idea of bringing
food together and bringing- growing food and stuff to like empower our
community, bring us together. You know hold events, get people organized
around this concept of just being empowered together.
The individuals I interviewed also regularly expressed that community gardens could and

should be used to provide benefits to the whole community, rather than solely to

individual gardeners. Dorothy connected her efforts at community gardening to other

ways she pursued food justice, saying, “I volunteer at Sisters of the Road. So I give them

my kale because in the summertime, they don't charge people very much, maybe a

quarter, and they get a bag of veggies.” While these types in individual acts were

common among the gardeners I interviewed, there were also much larger scale ideas

shared. Tamica expressed a desire to move from the small community garden she

contributed to into a much larger space, in order to provide more benefits to the black

community:

Well, not even gardening, but farming you know and so we're just attempting
like- "oh that's a beautiful garden,” but a farm is what we need. We need to grow
 76
a massive amount of food for our community because we see our community
cannot afford these high end prices for what they say is organic, when it's really
not.
Tamica expressed that a larger space would provide a platform for other beneficial

programs and offer opportunities for the black community to build and strengthen social

networks beyond the community garden as well:

Share the produce, share the opportunities, the volunteer opportunities and
building an economic system for young people, getting them on their bikes in the
spring time, summer time and doing some delivery just like they used to do
newspapers back in the day. But now you’re delivering food and making
connection with people who look like you.
The model suggested by Tamica is similar to that of other food justice organizations,

such as Clean Green in Seattle, Washington, which utilizes a much larger space to grow

food for people of color and employs them in the market in which the produce is sold.

Growing Power, a black food space in Milwaukee, Wisconsin was discussed at length by

Jay, who had a chance to visit the farm and raved about their workshops, partnerships

with schools, and store that employs several community members.

Another topic frequently discussed was a desire to more directly involve the

community in efforts at creating and sustaining community gardens. Henry pointed out

how a lot of the money that has been spent on building community gardens in the past

could have been put to more beneficial use by a greater involvement of the communities

they serve:

I think it would have been more beneficial to take some of that money and have
the community members do a project where they help build. I mean that's what I
would like to do cause number one I like building, I like doing that type of thing.
So any aspect that happens on our farm, I want to be a part of it. Even if we hired
a contractor, I will always be like, "I get to help." Or any of my community
members that want to help get to help. We want to be a part of it. If it's laying
down concrete or tearing up concrete, if it's building something, we want to be a
 77
part of it, cause people who don't have that experience it's almost like training.
And the whole project should be teaching people in all aspects of it.
Two of the individuals I interviewed contribute to an organization that has acquired a

much larger space that allows for community members to grow food in community, and

also has developed additional programs for the black community and other communities

of color. In addition to this food justice focus, they work towards developing food

sovereignty by taking into consideration the cultural needs and desires of the

communities they work with, including not just African Americans, but several Latinx

and Somali families as well. Further, they aim to give these communities access to the

space and control over how it is shaped and operates. One of them informed me that:

Our hope is it- our hope is to, through (organization) and some of the other
community programs we're gonna be putting out, is to obtain long-term leases on
some spaces and facilitate them by purchasing seed, helping with crop planting,
and having some periodic classes and letting people have access to the space
without having to contact us, without us having to be there and no one possesses it
themselves. People can come harvest, people can come work.

5.2 Gardening to Resist

Many of the black gardeners I spoke to gardened as an act of resistance to

oppression, negative stereotypes, or historical trauma. Several of them did so in

community gardens that were explicitly identified as black garden spaces, which can act

as counterspaces (Case 2012) for black gardeners to pursue these motivations. Black

garden spaces are regularly occupied by black individuals, managed by black leaders, and

emphasize black identity and culture. This provides opportunities for black individuals to

resist deficit-oriented stereotypes, historical trauma, and oppression while working

towards food justice. As discussed in the literature review, counterspaces are especially
 78
important in extremely white environments such as Portland, where the constant exposure

to whiteness can be a form of oppression in itself. They are also increasingly necessary in

places such as Portland, where gentrification has caused the destruction of the black

community and spaces that previously served this function. Jay was involved in

establishing one of Portland’s black garden spaces several years ago, partially as a form

of resistance to the gentrification in the Albina neighborhood. He indicated that in

addition to providing food to the community, the garden was created as a place for black

individuals and other people of color to gather. Cherise described how gardens can take

the place of other counterspaces that have been eliminated in the process of gentrification

and displacement:

And it just becomes the community space to be at. I do feel like because a lot of
our black community is spread out in all these weird pockets and because there
aren't very many spaces anymore where it's the go-to space for the black
community, unless it's the church, and yeah it just leaves very little spaces for
people to gather and organize at.
Even though they may be outside the scope of this research, it is also important to note

that, there is also a wealth of black gardeners who garden at home and use black

gardening collectives as a way to build community around gardening. Zawiya shared this

information with me, along with her hope that I not misrepresent the black community in

Portland:

I think a lot of people garden at home and they feel unwelcome in the
[community] gardens. Also, there's a black gardeners collective so a lot of black
gardeners are a part of that collective. They don't want to be a part of the public
garden system. I hope that in your final thesis you don't just say that there are few
African American gardeners, cause there aren't. There are probably more
proportionately; they're just not in the community garden system.
 79
While these collectives may not be a physical space in the same way a garden is, it is

clear that they serve similar purposes and also use gardening as a form of resistance to

oppression.

In congruence with the literature, the gardeners I interviewed regularly discussed

growing food as “a way to heal the trauma associated with forced agricultural labor and

to empower a community through reimagined and reclaimed foodways” (Figueroa and

Alkon 2017:217). Henry noted that his family began gardening because, “it was

therapeutic for us to grow and it was just like second nature.” Other gardeners were more

explicit about what it was that they were trying to heal from, focusing on aspects of

historical trauma and persisting effects of racism, dating from slavery all the way up to

the war on drugs. As suggested in the literature, several gardeners also expressed that this

historical trauma often acts as a barrier to gardening, for some black individuals. Mass

traumas that were previously inflicted upon the black community in Portland , or more

broadly in the US ,can be a barrier even for those who have not lived through those

experiences because “traumatic events reverberate throughout the population, creating a

universal experience of trauma” (Sotero 2006: 94-95). Andreka, who previously

expressed that she participated in community gardening in order to reclaim or regenerate

parts of her identity and culture that had been stripped away, pointed out how the legacy

of slavery in the US makes some individuals view gardening and growing food as a

negative aspect that they would rather not be identified with:

So I just feel like when we were brought over, came over, whatever, everything
was stripped. Everything was stripped. So everything that we do was
implemented from someone else. I mean I kind of look at it as, you know that's
what we had to do. We had to work the fields. We were enslaved and we had to
work the fields. And maybe in some people's mind that's not what I'm gonna do.
 80
Like, “I'm not a slave no more; I don't have to work the fields. I don't have to do
that.”
Cherise noted that the lasting impact of white supremacy in the US is often neglected by

the local government and white individuals alike, in community gardens and the rest of

the city:

There's trauma too when you think about it. Sharecropping, slavery, all kinds of
reason that people might have for not wanting to get involved in a gardening
project. And you know, to be honest with you, the city and other folks, they're not
really trying to go out of their way to make sure black folks feel welcome in
garden spaces or any other space.
In addition to the emotional pain associated with historical racism and oppression in the

US, Jay recognized that this history also related to racialized structural barriers, such as

access to land:

You know that even after all the history of farming in America, of Black people
being abused and exploited for their labor and skills in America, you know, a lot
of those labor- all of those skills have been lost and a lot of land got lost. The
southern farmers had, basically had like a long tradition that goes all the way back
to slavery and sharecropping and like, you know all of this struggle to basically
acquire and maintain land that was ancestral land of African Americans who
either inherited or bought land over time.
Other gardeners pointed out more local and recent history, such as Sarah who noted that,

“the history in Oregon of anyone, a person of color, has not been great,” or Donna who

proposed a garden memorial, “in the name of the 1200 Black people that have been

murdered here since 1980 because of the War on Drugs.”

Several interviewees also expressed the view that people of color more broadly

pursue gardening as a therapeutic way to regenerate or connect to their culture in an

effort to resist cultural marginalization. Zawiya described another gardener form

Lebanon, who grew a culturally-specific allium, as “soothing his home-sickness with

gardening,” which she believed to be very different from the reasons most white
 81
individuals community garden. She suggested that these differences might explain some

of the disparities and divisions in the gardens, “because they're coming at two really

different issues.” Further, Zawiya pointed out that for black gardeners who pursue

gardening as a regenerative or therapeutic activity, microagressions and cultural

marginalization are types of intrusions that they intentionally avoid by gardening in

places other than white community gardens. These experiences are direct outcomes of the

white gaze and white normativity in these spaces, which act as additional sources of

marginalization for black individuals who may be attempting to resist cultural oppression.

Donna elaborated on this idea of how the white gaze negatively impacts black

individuals, with her own experiences in gardening, and beyond:

So when that is happening to you on a daily basis you're constantly being

interrupted and bombarded and hit by what, thousands of what negative images.
And it really takes work- that's extra work. So it's like having two jobs. The first
job is I've just got to keep my mind straight because I'm being bombarded. So
when I think about things that were hurtful and harmful to me, that would be
something that I would want to prevent ever happening again, right.

5.3 Reflections, Leadership, and Identity

Finally, many of the gardeners I spoke to expressed a desire to garden in a

community setting in order to be with people who are similar to themselves in

appearance, as well as in culture, indicating that other black individuals and people of

color were an important attribute to them. This is likely due to the fact that the presence

of other people of color helps to “decode” spaces as white, even if it does not code them

as a black space. Cherise was talking about other gardeners who might try to garden in

white gardens when she said, “people have to be able to relate to you. If they’re in a

space where they don't necessarily see reflections of themselves or feel welcome, they're
 82
just gonna be like, I'm not gonna go do that.” Several other gardeners expressed similar

ideas, with varying explanations as to why they preferred to garden with other black and

people of color individuals. Zawiya expressed that this an outcome of not just white

garden spaces, but the effect of living in a white city:

Right, so that's a part of it. It's pretty exhausting to talk about- to be black in
Portland I think a lot of people are choosing not to put themselves in situations
where they're one of few in their relaxation time.
Zawiya went on to explain how, because of this, people of color tend to seek each other

out in white garden spaces. She described this phenomenon in her own community

garden:

I do look forward to seeing people in the garden who are more diverse. There's a
guy who might be North African but he- he might not identify as black but I think
he's like Lebanese or Algerian, so I do see him, and there's a Latino family. We
are finding- of the 120 plots we find each other in the garden somehow.
Sarah expressed that she wished her garden had more people of color in it, noting that

more diversity in her garden would be nice. Dorothy also expressed a similar sentiment,

confessing that she really missed seeing the one other black woman who used to have a

plot in her community garden. That woman, coincidentally, was Sarah. Likely because

the proportion of black individuals in Portland is so small, these kinds of coincidences

were not uncommon. On the rare occasions during my observation at white gardens when

there were multiple black individuals gardening, they were usually well acquainted with

each other. Especially in Portland, where around three quarters of all individuals are

white (Census.gov 2018), being able to garden with other black individuals and people of

color was very important to many of the individuals I interviewed.

While many gardeners expressed the desire to be around other black gardeners

and people of color, there was also several discussions about the importance of black
 83
leadership in community gardens, or explanations of how the lack of it is unappealing.

For example, Cherise noted that in addition to a lack of “reflections” for black gardeners,

that “you don't see reflections of yourself helping to manage that space” in white gardens

either. Food justice scholars (McCutcheon 2011; Hoover 2013; Passidimo 2014) agree

that black leadership is needed in organizations and spaces that intend to benefit black

communities and the privileging of white leadership in alternative food networks has

been shown to contribute the whiteness of those spaces (Guthman 2008; Pilgeram 2012),

so it is no surprise that black leadership is an important attribute for many black

community gardeners. When reflecting on the small number of black individuals in PPR

community gardens, Jeff suggested that this may be a direct product of a lack of black

leadership:

I would look at what's the staffing of the community garden program. What they
look like? Do we have African immigrants? Do we have any local Black folks
from the neighborhoods? And I think that to me it always comes down to what do
your stuff look like and who are the decision makers. Who has power to make
decisions about how to do this?
Jeff’s recognition of a racialized power differential within Portland’s community gardens

was not unique. Donna, who helped develop a community garden in NE Portland, noted

that she was motivated by the realization that it was not just farmers markets that were all

being “run by the dominant” in Portland, but community gardens as well.

Other gardeners suggested that black leadership was needed, not only at the level

of individual community gardens and community garden programs, but on a broader

level to motivate the participation of the black community in what several gardeners

referred to as “a movement” around community food. Jay noted that:

 84
There’s no movement builder around people of color and food in Oregon. There
are Latino movements in Oregon; I'm not denying that. But for African
Americans, I feel like there's not a movement leader on these issues, and having
somebody who's the movement leader, you know, who is a figure head. It just
helps raise money and get things going, I feel like, a lot easier.
Jay’s perspectives about Portland contrasted the movement building that he experienced

in places such as New York and Milwaukee, where prominent examples of black food

spaces are supported by thriving food justice movements. Tamica echoed these

sentiments, suggesting that this broader leadership should include the presence of some

prominent black community figure:

Sometimes you gotta get a big name to get somebody on board, and that may be
what it's gonna take in order to get more African descent people back to nature,
back to the land, and back to their tribe.
However, the presence of black leadership alone may not be enough to increase the

number of black gardeners in Portland. One individual I interviewed was a garden

manager, which demonstrates the possibility for black leadership within white gardens.

However, this did not attract any other black individuals or to decode the space as white.

Black “reflections” and leadership tend to work together to provide a positive and

beneficial experience for black individuals, and it is unlikely that they will have the same

effect individually.

The final attribute that was discussed by many gardeners I interviewed was a

focus on black identity and culture. As described in the literature, many food justice

organizations emphasize racial identity and focus on enhancing, or in some cases

restoring this identity as a means of empowering community. As Ramirez pointed out,

race can, “either reify existing inequalities or challenge them, depending on how the food

space is being produced” (2014:752). An emphasis on black identity is often used to

 85
“produce” spaces as black garden spaces and welcome black individuals into that space.

Many of the gardeners I interviewed described their motivations for gardening, including

the explicit intention of reclaiming parts of their black identity that have been lost or

stripped away by the forces of oppression. To this end, many black community gardeners

grew food that is culturally representative and an expression of their identity, and

expressed a desire to grow food in a space where they were not alone in these efforts.

Finney (2014) explored how historical racism and racial stereotypes have

influenced black individuals’ connection to the environment in the US, by creating and

embedding these false assumptions in the consciousness of both white and black

individuals and communities. Antonio discussed the way he viewed community

gardening in relation to the black community in Portland, “I don't know a lot of black

people that are into gardening, just generally. Like I know like myself, but uh I don’t

have any friends that live in Portland that do it.” Antonio suggested that this may be due

to gardening being viewed as something that black individuals do not or should not do.

Conversely, Andreka explained how for her, gardening and growing food is part of her

culture that she is trying to reclaim and pass on to her children:

But these are things that we did all along and we've gotten away from them. And
we're trying to bring folks back to it. I did this when I was kid; this is what we're
gonna do. This is something I'm gonna pass to my children that's just like water
rafting or camping or anything like that. And as I was saying, taking my family
camping is like what? Like black folks don't camp? This is not what we do. But
yeah, it is what we do! We've been doing it. I mean we've lived off the land.
Andreka’s comparison between growing food and camping engages the notion of deficit-

oriented narratives (Case 2012) and false stereotypes. By passing these activities on to

her children, Andreka aimed to actively establish them as part of their identity as black

individuals in an effort to resist these types of negative stereotypes. Similarly, Tamica

 86
stressed the need to emphasize black identity as a way to show younger black individuals

that growing food is a source of empowerment and a way to resist oppression, rather than

a continuation of previous forms of oppression:

I also have a dedication to it because I want to leave that legacy, a part of that
legacy to my generation, to say that it is ok for us to do this work. Let's not
consider it as a bad thing, but let's consider it as an empowerment thing, where we
have access, you know resources and all of that.
Whether trying to share this idea with black youth, or with other black individuals

of the same age, many of the black community gardeners I interviewed were motivated

by a desire to express the growing of food as a part of individual and community identity,

as a source of empowerment and in order to resist the dominant ideology in Portland and

the US. In one particularly insightful portion of our interview, Zawiya shared that she

intentionally and regularly shared photos of her community gardening experiences

online, as a way to resist the displacement and dispossession that have been the

normative experience for many black individuals throughout US history:

I'm posting these pictures it's almost like- gardening for me is almost like quilting
was three hundred years ago for my people, people who made quilts and hung
them in the windows to help runaway slaves guide their way to freedom. And I
feel like these posts are that my people are on this journey beyond physical
freedom to a kind of freedom to live the fullness of the American experience. The
black American experience is itinerant, right? We were taken by ship and had the
sea voyage here and then sold and moved around and, you know you're constantly
moving, stripping yourself of family ties and stripping your connection to a
particular place. So then when emancipation happens, the largest migration in
American history was the migration of slaves and former slaves out of the south
in northern urban centers. So it's been a- it's a culture of constant movement and
fleeing and being- and the hardest part of that experience is being stripped of
connection to place and indigenousness. That's the deepest wound that we have,
and I think what I am trying to signal to people is that I'm reclaiming a place. It's
not about sustainability and all that shit. It's like me saying I'm free- in fact I'm
free enough to not go anywhere, to not be run out of any place, to not be displaced
or sold or run away.
 87
Many of the gardeners I interviewed made it clear that for them gardening was about

black identity and black culture more than anything else. It was not only about their own

personal black identity, but about making a contribution to the identity of the black

community as a whole and creating spaces for the sharing and expression of black

culture. In doing so, these gardeners aimed to provide other individuals with motivation

and knowledge to make (or remake) community gardening and growing food a central

part of their own black identities.

In this chapter I have argued that different concerns motivate the black

community gardeners I interviewed than do many white gardeners, which makes certain

garden attributes more appealing to black community gardeners based on the way these

attributes enable them to pursue those motivations. I demonstrated black gardeners I

interviewed were regularly motivated by food justice concerns and the desire to resist

oppression, both of which are enabled by the presence of other black gardeners, black

leadership, and a focus on black identity and/or black culture. Because black garden

spaces are regularly occupied by black individuals, managed by black leaders, and

emphasize black identity and culture, they provide opportunities for black individuals to

resist oppression while working towards food justice. While black gardeners may still be

able to pursue food justice in white gardens, the motivation of resisting oppression may

be more difficult to achieve in these spaces. The whiteness of a garden can make this

extremely difficult to achieve, as the white gaze and white normativity can create further

oppression through marginalization and microagressions. I also demonstrated that black

garden spaces act as counterspaces for the black community, which are increasingly
 88
important as many spaces that previously served this function have been eliminated as a

result of gentrification in Portland.

 89
6 CONCLUSION

This research explored the inequitable distribution of benefits associated with

community gardens, which has been a recent point of contention in Portland and in the

broader literature on urban agriculture and alternative food. This study also highlighted

the way these spaces are coded as white, as well as some of the impacts this has on black

community gardeners. Additionally, this research has addressed black garden spaces and

their benefit to the black community in Portland. Black community gardeners were

chosen for the focus of this research due to their perspectives and experiences as

outsiders within (Collins 1986) a white alternative food space, and their status as

outsiders within an extremely white city. Their perspectives are recognized as unique and

vital both through this standpoint and through the framework of Critical Race Theory,

which emphasizes the importance of experiential knowledge, as well as the need to

challenge the dominant ideology in the US, using counter-narratives provided by people

of color (Delgado and Stefancic 2017).

Overall, this research has demonstrated the whiteness of the majority of

Portland’s community gardens and the impact this has on black individuals. This research

has also shown that black garden spaces provide benefits to black individuals that

community gardens that are coded as white do not, and in most cases cannot. Many of

these benefits are the result of the specific attributes, which (due to the displacement

caused by gentrification) were previously available in the black community in Portland.

While the black community seeks to create and sustain spaces such as these, they face

barriers as a result of structural racism and white resistance. Additionally, limited

 90
resources as a result of structural racism are likely preventing many black individuals in

Portland from participating in community gardening in any space.

This study has contributed to the literature that is critical of the whiteness of

alternative food and urban agriculture, by filling an important gap, in which the

perspectives of people of color have largely been missing from the conversation. By

sharing the experiences of black community gardeners, I aimed to decenter whiteness and

instead highlight the ways in which this whiteness is experienced by black individuals,

and how these experiences influence their participation in community gardens in

Portland. These findings also offer contributions to whiteness studies more broadly, by

demonstrating how the concept of whiteness can be used as a theoretical tool to better

understand the experiences of people of color, and offer knowledge that counters the

dominant ideology in the US. The final contribution of this study is to the CRT

movement and larger body of literature associated with Critical Race Theory. By

elaborating on the concept of whiteness using a transdisciplinary perspective, this

research has demonstrated ways in which whiteness is major contributor to the

experiences of racism that are common to people of color. This conclusion proceeds with

a discussion of the individual research question posed earlier in this thesis.

Research Question 1: How do black individuals experience community gardens in

Portland, Oregon as racialized spaces?

Most of the black gardeners I interviewed viewed community gardens as

racialized spaces, with a sort of dichotomy emerging between white community gardens

and black garden spaces. However, there was one community garden I visited where
 91
neither of these labels would obviously apply. Because the recently migrated African

gardeners I interview there had little to say about this specific topic, it was impossible to

say how they perceived or experienced the racialization of their garden. Overall, gardens

are inevitably coded as white in Portland, unless efforts are taken to emphasize the

presence, identity, and culture of people of color. This coding can take place outside of

the garden, being based solely on perspectives and previous knowledge, and it can also

take place experientially within the garden. Some gardens were perceived as white by the

individuals I interviewed, despite never having been in that specific garden. Because

whiteness is so normative within Portland, this is not a surprising outcome.

Further, Portland’s community gardens are regularly coded as white by their

relationship to gentrification, a process that has benefitted whites at the expense of black

individuals and other PEOPLE OF COLOR in Portland. This racialized process has led to

the displacement of large number of black individuals, and this is viewed as a

continuation of the legacy of displacement of the black community in Portland. The

coding of these gardens as white is also due to their use as a development tool in

Portland, and their subsequent association with the Portland Development Commission

and other institutional organizations, which have been largely responsible for the

destruction of the black community through their historical development efforts.

Research Question 2: How are black gardener’s practices and participation in urban

agriculture in Portland influenced by racism and whiteness?

Many of the black gardeners I interview had been deterred from participating in

specific community gardens, or had left the program as a result of the whiteness of the
 92
spaces. The whiteness of the gardens was viewed as a barrier to many, and those who

overcame this barrier often encountered racist behavior, such as the marginalization of

their culture, microagressions, and expectations of inferiority that are embodied by the

white gaze (Yancy 2017). Because of this barrier and because of the way it inhibits black

gardeners’ ability to resist oppression, many black gardeners choose to garden in black

garden spaces. Also, because many black community gardeners in Portland are motivated

by food justice concerns, they are drawn to these spaces as this is not a regular aspect of

most white gardens. While several of the gardeners I interviewed chose to garden in

explicitly black gardens as a result of the whiteness of the majority of community gardens

in Portland, there were those who did not know about these spaces, or could not access

them, and were left with the choice of participating in a white community garden or no

community garden at all. Additionally, it was expressed by one gardener that black

garden collectives are another alternative to community gardens, which are pursued by

black individuals who prefer not to pursue community gardening due to the whiteness of

those spaces.

Research Question 3: In what ways do the features of a community garden influence

black individuals’ participation in Portland?

This question was modified from its original form, which asked about the

historical influences of individuals’ perceptions of the gardens. While this concept was

extremely difficult to get at, another interesting topic arose within the interviews and this

question was restated to address that topic. Specifically, the black gardeners I interviewed

emphasized the importance of gardening with other people of color and black individuals,
 93
the necessity for black leadership in community gardens, and an emphasis on black

identity and culture. These specific features enabled black gardeners to pursue the two

most common motivations that were expressed in regards to community gardening,

which were food justice or food sovereignty, and the desire to resist oppression. The

whiteness of Portland’s community gardens and their inherent lack of the three features

described above made them undesirable spaces that were unconducive to achieving these

motivations. Black garden spaces stand in direct juxtaposition to these spaces by hailing

black gardeners and other people of color, with an emphasis on black identity and culture,

as well as programs aimed at benefitting the black community and other communities of

color.

6.1 Policy and Action

The proliferation of black garden spaces, while an obvious benefit to the black

community, would also help to alleviate racial disparities in Portland and would most

likely lead to an increase in the overall health and well-being of Portlanders. Similarly,

these black garden spaces would likely provide many of the indirect benefits associated

with the physical presence of community gardens more generally, including decreased

crime, increased social interaction, economic opportunities, and more. White individuals

or organization which view these spaces as unfair or as a form of ‘reverse racism’, should

be reminded of the brutally unfair and directly racist history for black individuals in

Portland, as well as the current forms of institutional racism which continue to haunt and

oppress the black community, displacing them from their communities and leaving them

in a constant state of distress.

 94
While there may be little that Portland Parks and Recreation can do to impact the

racialization of Oregon’s food system or disrupt structural oppression in Portland more

broadly, it may be able to make its community garden program more beneficial to the

black community and more socially equitable in the process. While it seems an unlikely

prospect, due to the intensity of white resistance faced by individuals and organizations

who are already working on this front, this project has made it clear that the creation of a

black garden spaces by PPR would be the best course of action. These community

gardens would need to be managed by black leaders, and their plot-holders would need to

be allowed to emphasize their identity and culture however they see fit. While white and

other non-black individuals should be allowed some access to these gardens (to the same

extent that the public is currently allowed to access PPR community gardens), only

allowing black plot-holders would increase the likelihood of these garden functioning as

a counterspaces (Case 2012) for the black community. One of the biggest challenges PPR

would need to overcome in this process would be selecting a location that is accessible to

the heavily dispersed (and still shifting) black community in Portland. While

displacement has forced many black individuals and families out the Albina area,

designating a garden in this neighborhood as a black garden could also be symbolic

gesture towards the black community.

Another way that Portland Parks and Recreation could continue to improve equity

in its gardens and in Portland more broadly, would be to include more of a food justice

focus in its mission and policies. While some programs are currently in place that work

towards this end, such as Produce for People and the scholarship program for low-income

gardeners, PPR could make stronger requirements for individual plot holders to share
 95
their produce with these programs and could recruit a volunteer “community coordinator”

for each garden who would be responsible for creating educational and social events

within the garden and involving other community members in these events. PPR could

also partner with other social justice and food justice organizations in these efforts, who

would likely be willing to use the gardens for more community oriented events and

activities.

6.2 Limitations and Future Research:

As mentioned in the methods section of this study, my race, age, and level of

involvement in the research field were all issues that likely limited this research. In

addition to the individuals I did interview possibly holding back some of their thoughts

because of my identity, there may have also been potential for more effective recruitment

by a person of color who was a bit older and more involved in community gardening or

urban agriculture. Several black gardeners I engaged chose not to be interviewed when I

asked, and this may have also been a factor of the identity of the researcher. Also, as is

the case with all qualitative research with a small number of participants, these findings

are not generalizable. While the results of this study have theoretical implications that

may apply in other cities as well, the specific findings in this study should not be

generalized beyond the perceptions of black individuals I interviewed in Portland.

There are numerous opportunities for future research that became apparent during

this study. A more in-depth analysis of the history of community gardens would be of

great import, as it would likely allow for a more nuanced understanding of the ways

community gardens have been historically tied to larger oppressive structures in Portland,
 96
such as the Portland Development Commission, which spearheaded much of the

historical destruction of the black community. Further, this analysis could shed light on

the existence of community gardens in Portland, prior to the creation of Portland Parks

and Recreation’s program, which were much more likely to be grass-roots style

community gardens, created by the community with food justice concerns in mind. In

particular, the Beech Community Garden’s history would be of great interest, as it had

apparently been operating as a community garden in the Albina neighborhood long

before PPR installed water spigots, constructed a fence, and began charging individuals

for plots.

Additionally, a qualitative analysis of how (if at all) white community gardeners

interpret the racialization of community garden spaces in Portland would be extremely

informative. This could take the form of additional interviews or perhaps focus groups,

though the content of the study would need to be structured in a way that aimed to avoid

centering whiteness, as this has been one of the major criticism of the study of whiteness.

It became apparent through white reactions to this research that white individuals likely

have some strong feeling about the notion of community gardens being identified as

racial projects, and this would inform not only the literature on the whiteness of urban

agriculture and alternative food, but the broader literature on whiteness studies. In

addition, if white gardeners were less able to see the way race influences the dynamics of

community gardens, then this would only further validate the use of the Outsider within

Epistemology in future research.

 97
REFERENCES

Alkon, Allison Hope & Julian Agyeman. 2011. “The Food Movement as Polyculture.”
Pp. 1-20 in Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability, edited
by A. H. Alkon & J. Agyeman. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Alkon, Allison Hope & Dena Vang. 2016. “The Stockton Farmers Market: Racialization
And Sustainable Food Systems.” Food, Culture, and Society 19(2):389-411.

Alkon, Allison Hope and Julie Guthman. 2017. “A New Food Politics.” Pp. 316-323 in
The New Food Activism: Opposition, Cooperation, and Collective Action, edited
by Alison Hope Alkon and Julie Guthman. Oakland: University of California
Press.

Andersen, Margaret L. 2003. “Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on

Whiteness.” Pp. 21-34 in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism,
edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.

Bates, Lisa, Ann Curry-Stevens & Coalition of Communities of Color. 2014. The
African-American Community in Multnomah County: An Unsettling Profile.
Portland, OR: Portland State University.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. “’New Racism,’ Color-Blind Racism, and the Future of
Whiteness in America.” Pp. 271-284 in in White Out: The Continuing
Significance of Racism, edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva.
New York: Routledge.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2015. “The Structure of Racism in Color-Blind, ‘Post-Racial’

America.” American Behavioral Scientist 59(11)1358-1376.

Bowens, Natasha. 2015. The Color of Food: Stories of Race, Resilience, and Farming.
British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

Brave Heart, Maria Yellow Horse. 2003. “The Historical Trauma Response among
Natives and its Relationship with Substance Abuse: A Lakota Illustration.”
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 35(1):7–13.

Bruening, Jennifer E., Ketra L. Armstrong, and Donna L. Pastore. 2005. “Listening to the
Voices.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 76(1):82-100.

City of Portland. 2015. “First N/NE Housing Project Moves Forward.” Retrieved May 24,
2017 (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/528919).

Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1995. Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the
Movement. New York: The New Press.
 98
Creswell, John W. & Dana L. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative
Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39(3):124-130.

Collins, Patricia H. 1986. “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological
Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” Social Problems 33(6): s14–s32.

Collins, Patricia H. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.

Daniels, CarolAnn. 2007. “Outsiders-Within: Critical Race Theory, Graduate Education

and Barriers to Professionalization.” Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare
34(1):25-18.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic. 1997. Critical White Studies: Looking Behind the
Mirror. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic. 2017. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. New
York: NYU Press.

Doane, Ashley W. 2003. “Rethinking Whiteness Studies.” Pp. 3-18 in White Out: The
Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.

Draper, Carrie, and Darcy Freedman 2010. “Review and Analysis of the Benefits,
Purposes, and Motivations Associated with Community Gardening in the United
States. Journal of Community Practice 18(4):458-492.

Du Bois, W.E.B. 1995. “The Souls of White Folk.” Pp. 453-465 in W.E.B. Du Bois: A
Reader, edited by David L. Lewis. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

Figueroa, Meleiza and Alison Hope Alkon. 2017. “Cooperative Social Practices, Self-
Determination, and the Struggle for Food Justice in Oakland and Chicago.” Pp.
206-231 in The New Food Activism: Opposition, Cooperation, and Collective
Action, edited by A.H. Alkon and J. Guthman. Oakland: University of
California Press.

Finny, Carolyn. 2014. Black Face, White Spaces: Reimagining the Relationship of
African Americans to the Great Outdoors. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press.

Flores, Glenda M. 2016. “Discovering a Hidden Privilege: Ethnography in Multiracial

Organizations as an Outsider Within.” Ethnography 17(2):190–212.

Friends of Portland Community Gardens. 1995. Letter to the Bureau of Housing and
Community Development. (Grant Recommendation) Portland, Oregon: Portland
Community Gardens Program, Bureau of Parks and Recreation.
 99
Fullilove, Mindy Thompson. 2001. “Root Shock: The Consequences of African
American Dispossession.” Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York
Academy of Medicine 78(1):72-81.

Garcia, Jennifer J., Gilbert. C. Gee, and Malia Jones. 2016. “A Critical Race Theory
Analysis of Public Park Features in Latino Immigrant Neighborhoods.” Du Bois
Review 13(2): 397-411.

Gibson, Karen J. 2007. “Bleeding Albina: A History of Community Disinvestment, 1940-

2000.” Transforming Anthropology 15(1):3-25.

Gooding-Williams, Robert and Charles W. Mills. 2014. “Race in a ‘Postracial’ Epoch.”

Du Bois Review 11(1):1-8.

Goodling, Erin, Jamaal Green, & Nathan McClintock. 2015. “Uneven Development of
the Sustainable City: Shifting Capital in Portland, Oregon.” Urban Geography
36(4)504-527.

Guthman, Julie. 2008. “‘If They Only Knew’: Color Blindness and Universalism in
California Alternative Food Institutions.” The Professional Geographer
60(3):387-397.

Harding, Sandra. 1986. The Science Question in Feminism. New York: Cornell
University Press.

Hargreaves, Beth. 1996. “Learning from the Outsider Within: Five Women's Discourses
within the Culture of the High School Principal.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 8-12, New
York, NY.

Henson, Zachary and Genevieve Munsey. 2014. “Race, Culture, and Practice:
Segregation and Local Food in Birmingham, Alabama. Urban Geography
5(7):998-1019.

Hern, Matt. 2016. What a City Is For: Remaking the Politics of Displacement.
Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hoover, Brandon M. 2013. “White Spaces in Black and Latino Places: Urban Agriculture
and Food Sovereignty.” Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community
Development 2(4):109-115.

Jarosz, Lucy. 2008. "The City in the Country: Growing Alternative food networks in
Metropolitan areas." Journal of Rural Studies 24:231-244.
 100
Kobayashi, Audrey and Linda Peake. “Racism out of Place: Thoughts on Whiteness and
Antiracist Geography in the New Millennium.” Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 90(2):392-403.

Kwon, Hyeyoung. 2015. “Intersectionality in Interaction: Immigrant Youth Doing

American from an Outsider-Within Position.” Social Problems 62(4):623–641.

Lawson, Laura J. 2005. City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America.

University of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.

Lewis, Amanda E. 2003. “Some are More Equal than Others: Lesson on Whiteness from
School.” Pp. 159-172 in White Out: the Continuing Significance of Racism edited
by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.

Lubitow, Amy and Thaddeus R. Miller. 2013. “Contesting Sustainability: Bikes, Race,
and Politics in Portlandia.” Environmental Justice 6(4):121-126.

Malakoff, D. 1995. “What Good is Community Greening?” Community Greening Review

5:4-11.

McClintock, Nathan. 2014. “Radical, Reformist, and Garden-Variety Neoliberal: Coming

to Terms with Urban Agriculture’s Contradictions.” Local Environment
19(2):147-171.

McClintock, Nathan, Dillon Mahmoudi, Michael Simpson, Jacinto Pereira Santos. 2016.
“Socio-spatial differentiation in the Sustainable City: A Mixed-methods
Assessment of Residential Gardens in Metropolitan Portland, Oregon, USA.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 148:1-16.

McClintock, Nathan, Christina Miewald & Eugene McCann. 2018. “The Politics of
Urban Agriculture: Sustainability, Governance, and Contestation.” Pp. 361-367
in The Routledge Handbook of Spaces of Urban Politics, edited by A. Jonas, B.
Miller, K. Ward & D. Wilson. London: Routledge.

McCutcheon, Priscilla. 2011. “Community Food Security ‘For Us, By Us’: The nation of
Islam and the Pan African Orthodox Christian Church.” Pp. 177-196 in
Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability, edited by A.H. Alkon
& J. Agyeman. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Mendes, Wendy, Kevin Balmer, Terra Kaethler, & Amanda Rhoads. 2008. “Using Land
Inventories to Plan for Urban Agriculture: Experiences from Portland and
Vancouver.” Journal of the American Planning Association 74(4):435-449.

Morrison, Toni. 1992. Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 101
Multnomah County. 2017 “MudBone Grown: RokHedz – GroundUp Organics –
GreenA&T.” Retrieved May 21, 2017 (https://multco.us/file/60082/download).

Nemore, C. 1998. “Rooted in Community: Community Gardens in New York City.”

Urban Agriculture Notes. Retrieved June 22, 2004.
(http://www.cityfarmer.org/NYkcomgardens.html).

Niemi, Laura. 2018. Personal communication (telephone). June 15.

Ohmer, Mary L., Pamela Meadowcroft, Kate Freed, and Ericka Lewis. 2009.
“Community Gardening and Community Development: Individual, Social, and
Community Benefits of a Community Conservation Program.” Journal of
Community Practice 17(4):377-399.

Omi and Winant. 2015. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.

Passidimo, C. 2014. “Whose Right to Farm the City? Race and Food Justice Activism in
Post-Katrina New Orleans.” Agriculture and Human Values 31(3):384-396.

Pelling, Jane. 2009. "Interview with Leslie Pohl-Kosbau, Community Garden Project
(audio).” Sustainability History Project. (http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/10880)

Pilgeram, Ryanne. 2012. “Social Sustainability and the White, Nuclear Family:
Constructions of Gender, Race, and Class at a Northwest Farmers Market.” Race,
Gender, and Class 19(1):37-60.

Pohl, Leslie. 2017. Personal communication (email). September 4.

Portland Bureau of Parks and Recreation. Community Gardener (plot-holder)

Demographic Data. Collected in 2016.

Portland Deltas. 2018 “Green Sustainable Buildings.” Retrieved June 25, 2017.
(www.portlanddeltas.org/green-sustainable-buildg).

Portland Community Garden Program. 2001. Request to the Community Livability Group
of the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area. (Grant Proposal) Portland,
Oregon: Portland Community Garden Program, Bureau of Parks and Recreation.

Portland Community Garden Program. 2017. “Community Gardens.” Retrieved Feb. 21,
2017. (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846).

Portland Community Garden Program. 2018. “Community Gardens.” Retrieved Feb. 23,
2018. (https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/39846).
 102
Poulsen, Melissa, Kristyna Hulland, Carolyn Gulas, Hieu Pham, Sarah Dalglish, Rebecca
Wilkinson and Peter Winch. 2014. “Growing and Urban Oasis: A Qualitative
Study of the Perceived Benefits of Community Gardening in Baltimore,
Maryland.” Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment 36(2):69-82.

Pudup, Mary Beth. 2008. “It Takes a Garden: Cultivating Citizen-Subjects in Organized
Garden Projects.” Geoforum 39:1228-1240.

Pulido, Laura. 2000. “Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban
Development in Southern California.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 90(1)12-40.

Ramírez, Margaret Marietta. 2014. “The Elusive Inclusive: Black Food Geographies and
Racialized Food Spaces.” Antipode 47(3):748-769.

Renn, Aaron M. 2009. “The White City.” New Geography. Retrieved May 25, 2018.
(http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city).

Reynolds, Rema and Darquillius Mayweather. 2017. “Recounting Racism, Resistance,

and Repression: Examining the Experiences of #Hashtag Activism of College
Students with Critical Race Theory and Counter Narratives” The Journal of
Negro Education 86(3):282-304.

Reynolds, Kristin. 2015. “Disparity Despite Diversity: Social Injustice in New York
City’s Urban Agricultural System.” Antipode 47(1):240-259.

Reynolds, Kristin and Nevin Cohen. 2016. Beyond the Kale: Urban Agriculture and
Social Justice Activism in New York City. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia
Press.

Saldivar-Tanaka, Laura and Marianne E. Krasny. 2004. “Culturing Community

Development, Neighborhood Open Space, and Civic Agriculture: The Case of
Latino Community Gardens in New York City.” Agriculture and Human Values
21:399-412.

Sbicca, Joshua. 2012. “Growing Food Justice by Planting and Anti-oppression

Foundation: Opportunities and Obstacles for a Budding Social Movement.
Agriculture and Human Values 29:455-466.

Shinew, Kimberly J., Troy D. Glover, and Diana C. Parry. 2004. “Leisure Spaces as
Potential Sites for Interracial Interaction: Community Gardens in Urban Areas.”
Journal of Leisure Research 36(3):336-355.

Slocum, Rachel. 2006. “Anti-Racist Practice and the Work of Community Food
Organizations.” Antipode 38(2):327-349.
 103
Slocum, Rachel. 2007. “Whiteness, space and alternative food practice.” Geoforum
38:520-533.

Slocum, Rachel and Arun Saldanha, eds. 2013. Geographies of Race and Food.
Burlington: Ashgate.

Solorzano, Daniel, Miguel Ceja, and Tara Yosso. 2000. “Critical Race Theory, Racial
Microagressions, and Campus Racial Climate: The Experiences of African
American College Students.” The Journal of Negro Education 69(1/2):60-73.

Sotero, Michelle M. 2006. “A Conceptual Model of Historical Trauma: Implications for

Public Health Practice and Research.” Journal of Health Disparities Research
and Practice 1(1):93-108.

Steinhauer, J. 2002. “Ending a Long Battle, New York lets Housing and Gardens Grow.”
New York Times Metropolitan Desk, September 19, section A, p. 1, column 1.

Thomas, David R. 2006. “A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative

Evaluation Data.” American Journal of Evaluation 27(2): 237-246.

Thrasher, Dory. 2016. “Fumbling for Community in a Brooklyn Community Garden.”

Pp. 159-176 in Cities of Farmers: Urban Agriculture Practices and Processes,
edited by Julie Dawson and Alfonso Morales. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Urban League of Portland. 2017 “Urban Harvest Garden.” Retrieved May 25, 2017
(https://ulpdx.org/get-involved/volunteer/urban-harvest-garden/).

Williams, D., H. Neighbors, and J. Jackson. 2003. “Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and

Health: Findings from Community Studies.” American Journal of Public Health
93(2):200–208.

Wright, Richard. 1947. Black Boy. Cleveland: World Publishing Company.

Yancy, George. 2017. Black Bodies, White Gazes: The Continuing Significance of Race
in America. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield.

Yoder, Janice D. and Patricia Aniakudo. 1997. “‘Outsider Within’ the Firehouse:
Subordination and Difference in the Social Interactions of African American
Women Firefighters.” Gender and Society 11(3):324-341

Zinschlag, Bryan James. 2014. “Cultivating Common Ground? A Case Study of a

Community Garden Organization in Northeast Portland, Oregon.” Master’s
Thesis, Department of Sociology, Portland State University, Portland.
 104
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE
1. How long have you lived in Portland?
a. Oregon, United States?
b. Where did you live before?
2. How did you first start gardening?

3. How long have you been a community gardener?

a. At this garden?
b. Other gardens in Portland?
c. Outside of Portland?

4. Why do you participate in community gardening?

a. Social interaction, health, food security?
i. Which of these reasons is most important?
b. Why did you choose this garden?
i. Close to home?

5. How would you describe your garden plot?

a. How do you decided what to grow?
b. Is there a time of day that you prefer to work in your garden? Why?

Now I would like to switch tracks a bit, and ask you some questions about your
community garden space, as a whole.

6. How would you describe the community garden as a whole?

a. Do people interact much?
b. How have you been involved in planning at your garden?

7. How would you describe the typical gardener in your garden?

8. How do you interact with other gardeners?

a. The garden manager?
b. Does race factor in?

9. Can you tell me about a positive experience that you have had in the garden?
a. How about a negative experience?

10. What would you change about your community garden if you could?

11. Why do you think it is that there are such a small number of black or African
American gardeners in Portland’s community gardens?

12. Do you know any other black community gardeners that would be interested in
participating in this project?
 105
APPENDIX B: HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

Post Office Box 751 503-725-2227 tel

Portland, Oregon 97207-0751 503-725-8170 fax
Date: July 12, 2017

To: Julius McGee / David Billings, Sociology

From: Lindsey Wilkinson, IRB Chair
Re:
IRB review determination for your protocol # 174240, entitled: “Whose Garden? Exploring
Experiences of Black Community Gardeners in Portland, OR”
Notice of IRB Review and Determination - Initial Review
Exempt Review Category 2; as per Title 45 CFR Part 46
In accordance with your request, the PSU Research Integrity office, on behalf of the IRB
(Human Subjects Research Review Committee), has reviewed and approved your protocol for
compliance with PSU policies and DHHS regulations covering the protection of human subjects.
Research Integrity has determined your protocol qualifies for exempt review and is satisfied
that your provisions for protecting the rights and welfare of all subjects participating in the
research are adequate. Please note the following requirements:

Approval: You are approved to conduct this research study after receipt of this approval letter,
and the research must be conducted according to the plans and protocol submitted (approved
copy enclosed).

Consent: You must use IRB-approved consent materials with study participants.

Changes to Protocol: Any changes in the proposed study, whether to procedures, survey
instruments, consent forms or cover letters, must be outlined and submitted to Research
Integrity immediately. The proposed changes cannot be implemented before they have been
reviewed and approved by Research Integrity.

Adverse Reactions and/or Unanticipated Problems: If any adverse reactions or

unanticipated problems occur as a result of this study, you are required to notify Research
Integrity office within 5 days of the event. If the issue is serious, approval may be withdrawn
pending an investigation by the IRB.

Completion of Study: Please notify Research Integrity as soon as your research has been
completed. Study records, including protocols and signed consent forms for each participant,
must be kept by the investigator in a secure location for three years following completion of the
study (or per any requirements specified by the project’s funding agency).

If you have questions or concerns, please contact the Research Integrity office in Research &
Strategic Partnerships at [email protected] or call 503-725-2227.