Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dan Conine <dconine@dotnet.com>]

> From: Gloria Baikauskas <gcb49@flash.net>
> Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Livingontheland Digest, Vol 65, Issue 3
> To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <20061101220442.67919.qmail@web81108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> There is a flaw in that in that it states that deforestation has basically continued since 900 AD.  In a few articles I have read....one in the Atlantic magazine....there is proof that the US actually has more forested land now than it did when the Pilgrims landed.  The Native Americans then had cleared so much forest...moving their villages as they had to get closer to the ever farther distant fields as the soil played out where they were...clearing the forests more and more as the years went by.  
>    
>   The other thing not mentioned in this article....and those on global warming usually...is the fact that the magnetic poles are reversing.  Though there are some that say they may not reverse, data continues to show that they will. 
>    
>   Gloria, Texas

Actually, this is a poor comparison. The book "1491" does a good job of 
covering many aspects of how previous inhabitants influenced the forests 
they wanted, including burning the underbrush to clear the woods for 
game grazing, and planting forests. (much of what the Europeans found 
was created by the Mississippian cultures who had much higher 
populations than the history books have been telling us.)
The Europeans that came for tobacco growing denuded the landscape 
completely, moving on to other lands whenever their profits dropped, and 
what the later farmers on the East coast were left with had to be 
rebuilt with the old world manure-methods at least once. (Also "Mr 
Jefferson's Lost Cause" 
http://www.amazon.com/Mr-Jeffersons-Lost-Cause-Louisiana/dp/0195153472/sr=8-37/qid=1162488695/ref=sr_1_37/002-3916990-3871234?ie=UTF8&s=books)

The reason there are more forests now in America than there used to be 
is that we get our wood from Canada and Indonesia, rather than the 
expensive sawmill labor and forest management that Americans don't want 
next door to their McDrywall Shantytowns.

There hasn't been an actual pristine forest in America for 20,000 years 
or so, but that doesn't mean we can't make ones we like and care for 
them well. The Native American cultures that are often accused of slash 
and burn destruction were actually following European methods. Slash and 
burn isn't efficient without steel to slash with. Brush burning usually 
recovers quickly, drawing in game animals. There are a billion factors 
to consider, and my point is only that you can't believe much of what 
you might read, especially if it makes a general statement about 
deforestation over the last 2000 years based on schoolbooks and 
corporate proposals, since we haven't acknowledged the state of the 
people who lived here, let alone how they lived before European diseases 
wiped them out by the millions. (yes, millions)
Admitting that so many could live without 'modern' technology would be 
to admit that there is an alternative to what we now have created, one 
where the land is worshiped and people cooperate instead of compete with 
nature's way of doing things. As the no-till advocates on this list have 
found, it is very difficult to convince people that plowing things up 
for 'profit' is not 'right', or that people can learn to live together 
without oppressive governments. Long term ways of living don't have to 
be primitive, they just need to do less damage to the planet.

-Dan