4 ms·
In my opinion, you seem to think there’s some sort of left-leaning political agenda in this post. Interestingly, a right-leaning college “friend” on Facebook u
by bluepod4 3y ago
In my opinion, you seem to think there’s some sort of left-leaning political agenda in this post.
Interestingly, a right-leaning college “friend” on Facebook uses (and links to articles that use) the same “Indians have been doing it for thousands of years” argument to complain about Democrats, California, and conservationists.
- alexb_ 3y agoOkay? I don't care what "side" someone is on when they use this argument. I still think that's not a valid argument. Just because I agree with the conclusion he reaches (controlled burns are good) doesn't mean the logic was sound.
- bluepod4 3y agoOk. It was hard to tell based on the language you used. > Why burn on purpose? It admittedly seems counterintuitive — or even dangerous — but purposeful burns have been used by Indigenous people to keep forests and wildland healthy for millenia. This is what you’re getting hung up on when you should really be focusing on the highlighted (and enlarged) quote: “Setting fires intentionally may sound unusual, but if done correctly they reduce the fuel available for wildfires and are beneficial for a healthy ecosystem.” The logic is sound in my opinion. Group X of people were doing things a “better” way, have continued to want to do things the “better” way but were prevented by Group Y, and it’s been _proven_ that their “way” was and is indeed “better”. I will acknowledge that the article is lacking in the _proven_ sense. But it’s still there. The reason why this article even mentions Native Americans though is because the new program that is being sponsored specifically targets cultural (i.e. Native American) burns.