Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Fwd: [permaculture] MHC and PC

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Marimike6@cs.com
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Fwd: [permaculture] MHC and PC
  • Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:35:12 EST

Dear Bob--

Glad I was able to stir up a hornet's nest here. We are of two minds, and I do not expect to sway you, but would like to offer this response to your comments, in reverse order......

1) I am "stuck in a patriarchal world that characterises nature as an adversary".

Sometimes nature is benign, and we can sniff the jasmine as we wander through it. But if we want to make a living from it-- or even if we just want to live in a landscaped yard instead of an undeveloped field-- we have to pull some stuff up in order to install something else. Otherwise we would starve. I meant what I said about kudzu being a "noble adversary", and enjoy coming to grips with it. But one day it's got to go or I will have no place to put my pole beans. (I have not, by the way, used RoundUp on it since the first year I moved here, and do not plan to ever use it again on anything. I saw it was a mistake.)

2) Measles and influenza are good examples of weeds because they do readily transplant and thrive like crazy in fresh fields of humanity where they have previously been absent. This would seem hard to refute. It is the definition of the word invasive. And it is the fact that they have co-adapted with humanity that makes them so successful. These bugs know all the tricks. New populations not previously exposed to them do not.

This is the same way those Asian eelfish (I forget the name) are now taking over. They have adapted to a competitive life among adversarial fish populations in Southern China, with whom they've co-evolved. Then, when introduced to a new area like Eastern Maryland, they can easily outcompete among populations previously unfamiliar with them.

3) and 4) I don't think you can make the case for my being sexist and racist simply because of my use of words you may consider non-PC. In my world, mankind used to be a perfectly respectable designation. For our purposes here, I defer to you and use the more acceptable "humanity".

The use of stereotypes is a deeper subject, and I will concede the obvious, that the misuse of stereotyping can give rise to some ugly beliefs and behaviors. However, it is the case that they have some utility when you are describing populations.

You may think this despicable, but it is the fact that in the American inner cities, an overwhelming number of the stores are run by Koreans. Before the Koreans, it was the Jews. These guys on average like to run stores, do a good job of it, and do this for a living all over the world. When they are run out of a neighborhood, such as after a riot, they are not replaced by black store owners--there are just no more stores. This is because it is extremely rare, although not totally unheard of, for Afro-Americans to become entrepreneurs. It does not form a part of their cultural tradition.  I would suggest that this trait, cultural tradition, is precisely what I was referring to in my original post. It lies demonstrably outside the skin.

Indians, Syrian-Lebanese, Greeks and the Overseas Chinese are other examples of mercantile peoples. They spread  worldwide in a manner analogous to other weeds. Excuse me, but it's true. When was the last time you spent the night at a mom and pop motel and didn't find a South Indian behind the desk? Is this just coincidence, or is it something cultural?

I've belabored these points overly long. Describe the behavior of any grouping of people, plants or animals and you'll find characteristics that are widespread and statistically predictable, although far from universal. That's what gives our world its savor. A certain number of arc welders are women. A low number, but there are a few. Should we blind ourselves to such data?

Mike Elvin

--- Begin Message ---
  • From: Bob Howard <rmhoward@omninet.net.au>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Fwd: [permaculture] RE: Major histocompatibility complex (MHC)
  • Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:56:51 +0800
 

Marimike6@cs.com wrote:

First let me mention that it was I and not Eugene F Monaco who wrote that the white man was a good example of a hardy weed. I may have caused some sensitivities to bristle here by my unthinking usage of the term. I did not mean to imply that there was something in our pigmentation that controlled whether or not we adapted readily to other environments and tended to displace other races due to their differing pigmentation.

I intended to focus on the qualities that create a weed-- that is, a species that thrives in disturbed ground and that tends to outcompete native species when introduced into a new area. A more accurate definition would be "Western man", who by his aggressive and acquisitive spirit, as well as by his advanced technology, tended to exploit niches not exploited before he got there, and to prevail economically over local populations unable to compete with him. In this he is very like the common purple loosestrife.

The Chinese in the Pacific Rim and Latin America, the Indians in East Africa and the Greeks and Syrian-Lebanese all over the world are other examples of weeds that readily transplant and thrive. This is due to their cultural, not gross racial, characteristics. They tend to dominate economically.
 

whether the stereotype is racial or ethnic it still begs the question. Unless you can identify something beyond the skin tyhen you are merely ebign racist.
 
Likewise, my use of the words "man" and "he", above, should not connote sexism  In common usage I believe such words as "mankind" are still preferred over "peoplekind". I mean no disrespect toward women. My intent was simply to shed some light on MHC, and by extension on all genetic, cultural and behavioral pathways that confer superior adaptibility to environmental competition and limits to growth.
 
...and sexist the word you need is 'humanity'
 
 
In that light I would offer measles, or influenza, as good examples of weeds. Having existed worldwide for a long period of history, they have co-adapted with mankind and are impressive public health foes, difficult to dislodge, impossible to eradicate. By contrast hemorrhagic fevers, such as Lassa or Marburg, are rare exotics, that tend to die out quickly and reoccur in sporadic outbursts. They have not adapted to coexistence with the rest of the biologic web, in the world at large, but for the most part remain confined to small areas of the African tropical forest.
 
this makes no sense on the one hand your saying that weeds are invasives in new areas where they 'rdily transplant and thrive' on the other your saying that measles and influenza are weeds because they 'have coadapted with mankind[sic]"
 
In my area the most successful invasive is kudzu. Its adaptations include growing from a broken piece of rhizome, in the way violets do, and sending rootstocks deep underground so that no matter how deep you dig, you've left a little piece behind. It grows a foot a day, and can smother century-old trees in a decade, so that entire forests have been swallowed up. It is virtually impervious to herbicides, and thrives on such poisonous crap as RoundUp and Black Leaf. In fact, after a temporary setback it seems invigorated by them. It is truly a noble adversary
 
unfortunately you are stuck in a patriarchal world view that characterizes nature as an 'adversary'. i'd suggest reading SDusan Griffin's "Woman and Nature - the roaring inside her' as an antidote.

Bob howard
  _______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture

--- End Message ---




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page