3 ms·

That seems uncharitable to the OP. Context is important. I think that in the present cultural climate, the OP's interpretation is entirely reasonable. He isn't

That seems uncharitable to the OP. Context is important. I think that in the present cultural climate, the OP's interpretation is entirely reasonable. He isn't saying European settlers or colonizers didn't make bad decisions (though often we are fed tendentious caricatures here), or denying that there might be something that can be learned from a native population. It's the forced emphasis. Writing is not just producing a bag of atomic propositions. What is written must be justified and relevant. When something forced occurs within some piece of writing, it betrays a bias, or even an ulterior motive. In this case, controlled burns (or letting natural wildfires play out) aren't a new thing. They're older than agriculture, and they are and have been used across the world in modern times for some time. Look at a live map of forest fires and you'll notice how many are controlled burns. It's not as if we're considering the use of controlled burns for the first time and discovering some long-forgotten wisdom of the natives here. Frankly, what's weird is that California is just now doing this. But I also wouldn't make a big deal out of this article either. I think learning about precolonial practices like this is interesting, regardless of the bias or motives of the article's author.

test098 3y ago
there's "forced emphasis" because controlled burns which had been occurring for 1000s of years were outlawed by european settlers, leading to the current catastrophic wildfires that we experience every year in california. historical context isn't some kind of "woke" gotcha - it's literally the history of controlled burns and why banning them has caused our current problems.
- njarboe 3y ago
  As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, most of the forests in California were clearcut and the large, spread out, old growth forests that the Indians (native americans, indigenous people, etc.) used controlled burns on don't exist any more. In 1000 years we could possible get back to that but until then we will have to discover how to do these burns in the forest as it exists and decide if they are a good idea.
  - jchanimal 3y ago
    One of my favorite hikes in Oregon is a cermonial white oak grove that was crafted by generations of controlled burns. It's starting to fade, but walking the paths it's humbling to imagine what it was like at its full glory. I was also taught to think of the American genocide as a fait-accompli but of course the reality is more complex and the history has not been erased.

test098 3y ago

there's "forced emphasis" because controlled burns which had been occurring for 1000s of years were outlawed by european settlers, leading to the current catastrophic wildfires that we experience every year in california. historical context isn't some kind of "woke" gotcha - it's literally the history of controlled burns and why banning them has caused our current problems.

njarboe 3y ago
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, most of the forests in California were clearcut and the large, spread out, old growth forests that the Indians (native americans, indigenous people, etc.) used controlled burns on don't exist any more. In 1000 years we could possible get back to that but until then we will have to discover how to do these burns in the forest as it exists and decide if they are a good idea.
- jchanimal 3y ago
  One of my favorite hikes in Oregon is a cermonial white oak grove that was crafted by generations of controlled burns. It's starting to fade, but walking the paths it's humbling to imagine what it was like at its full glory. I was also taught to think of the American genocide as a fait-accompli but of course the reality is more complex and the history has not been erased.