2 ms·
>This doesn’t appear to be the case legally speaking. How can you defend injustice toward them using the very legal system that has subjugated them? >Why do y
by ecuaflo 3y ago
>This doesn’t appear to be the case legally speaking.
How can you defend injustice toward them using the very legal system that has subjugated them?
>Why do you assume this? Because of their heritage? Americans didn’t move in yesterday, they’ve also been here for centuries and these environmental issues are pretty recent in comparison. You seem to be making a gross assumption here and playing along with their political ploy. Not saying they want the resource wealth but that doesn’t mean they don’t have an incentive to play up the environment for their own territorial gain.
It's what I was taught in my forestry program at Cal. Native American strategies that included routine prescribed burning worked better to replenish the forest than ours of absolute fire suppression that has led to more intense and out-of-control fires that decimate forests and their wildlife, for example.
- ericmcer 3y agoI don’t think we do fire suppression because we are too dumb to understand that unburned materials will build up. We do it because people live everywhere and it is challenging legally to tell people to evacuate their homes because we need to do a controlled burn.
- ethanbond 3y agoNo historically we were too dumb. Prescribed burns were a “revolution” in fire management (1995 in the US)