Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] forestlands and Native peoples

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Dan Conine <dconine@dotnet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] forestlands and Native peoples
  • Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:01:11 -0600


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



  • Re: [Livingontheland] forestlands and Native peoples, Dan Conine, 11/02/2006

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page