There are boatloads of good information on truly innovative land management practices in the 'New' World, as in many other places. However, the binary of colonial/indigenous is getting a bit worn, isn't it?
As you said, in Ireland, in pre-colonial times, they had developed similar practices as those on Turtle Island. However, in the context of Ireland, who are the colonizers? The Romans? The English? Didn't the French colonize England?
Weren't the French first colonized by the Romans, who then colonized the British? Weren't Spain and Greece colonized by the Moors? Wasn't Greece colonized by the Romans, while the Levant was colonized for a time by Egypt, which was subsequently colonized by the Greeks and then the French and British?
I think this idea that Europeans=colonizers, indigenous peoples of certain places=colonized doesn't hold up in the wider context of history.
By the same token, vilifying only white Americans for slavery, writ large, which was practiced long before the US was founded, and still is in many parts of the world, is absurd. White people in American ended slavery in the United States, but that part is somehow inconvenient to the white people=bad; black people=good narrative we are now forced to swallow at every turn.
The history of humans is one of cultural and technological change. Not all practices of indigenous people colonized by Europeans are ones that I think many would want to institute across the world, like the many forms of genital mutilation practiced as coming of age rituals?
We should, I humbly propose, consider our amalgam of cultures to be what is and what should be, while picking the best practices among us, rather that dusting the socially unfair and negative practices of those identified as colonized under the narrative rug, while amplifying the same for those presented as colonizers.
Even in the frame of reference that considers European colonizers as oppressors of the indigenous people there when they arrived, leaves out the lack of choice that the lower classes of European society had in where they went, who they killed and what they stole. Britain was famous for 'impressing' British and American citizens alike into their navy as de facto slaves themselves.
When will the time be that we can jettison the divisive language and work toward a better, more fair world for all, without vilifying anyone for their race or ethnic background?
You seem like someone that has yet to learn about the culture of your own indigenous ancestors, and so you erroneously assume that when someone like myself uses the word indigenous, I am referring to people of a higher melanin skin content.
RE: "I think this idea that Europeans=colonizers, indigenous peoples of certain places=colonized doesn't hold up in the wider context of history."
Well I never stated anything that implies that and I actually agree with you on that point. There are plenty of non-European colonizers (Inca, Mound building Turtle Islanders and others) and also plenty of European indigenous placed based cultures. You seem to be reacting to my post based on your interactions with a bunch of "us vs them" type folks that look at some genetics as "good" and "noble" and some as "nasty" and "colonizers". that thinking is nonsense. We were each gifted free will by the Creator and we are more than the sum of our DNA and outward appearance.
If so, this may be the source of your confusion with my use of the terms here.
All people have an indigenous history, for some of us, it is buried under a lot of centuries to millennia of multi-generational psychological warfare, but that indigenous connection to a place based culture is always there, no matter how hard confused and arrogant techno-optimists try to bury it with implanted socio-political identities.
RE "As you said, in Ireland, in pre-colonial times, they had developed similar practices as those on Turtle Island. However, in the context of Ireland, who are the colonizers?"
No I said the Gael (a pre-Irish and pre-statist culture that lived there for millennia had developed those regenerative food systems). Irish people came much much later than the Druids and their Brehon successors.
Yes the Romans were the first that brought the machinations of a centralized imperialistic and anthropocentric regime to the shores or Eire (aka Ireland).
The language I use is not divisive, it precisely describes specific behavior choices of individuals and statist regimes (not entire genetic lineages from past to present as you presume).
Would you like to impose your language usage preferences onto all of humanity like the "they-them-those" cultists?
I would advocate that you stop being so defensive about your genetics and assuming others are hating on you, abandon the cult of statism and get to know your own pre-colonial place based indigenous ancestors (as they have much to teach you and all of us).
Methane lasts for about 12 years (when 50% has degraded) before turning into CO2 and water, but in those 12 years it has an effect on climate that's 83 times the effect of the CO2. That means for those 12 years (and in fact the scientific effect is considered to last for around 20 years in total) it not only mimics CO2 on steroids, but it can generate the surge in climate conditions to reach and pass 'tipping points' such as the collapse in glaciers or ocean currents, or indeed the heat waves that might destroy crops, start forest fires, or kill people.
Note that even when those 20 years are over, it still becomes CO2. Note also that estimates of methane quantities, especially under the coastal waters, are so massive that even triggering 1% or 2% would be a global catastrophe.
Well, whether or not Methane is as problematic as conventional "climate change" alarmists suggest, feeding it to live stock is a great idea. You would have some very happy and healthy animals regardless of methane variables.
There are boatloads of good information on truly innovative land management practices in the 'New' World, as in many other places. However, the binary of colonial/indigenous is getting a bit worn, isn't it?
As you said, in Ireland, in pre-colonial times, they had developed similar practices as those on Turtle Island. However, in the context of Ireland, who are the colonizers? The Romans? The English? Didn't the French colonize England?
Weren't the French first colonized by the Romans, who then colonized the British? Weren't Spain and Greece colonized by the Moors? Wasn't Greece colonized by the Romans, while the Levant was colonized for a time by Egypt, which was subsequently colonized by the Greeks and then the French and British?
I think this idea that Europeans=colonizers, indigenous peoples of certain places=colonized doesn't hold up in the wider context of history.
By the same token, vilifying only white Americans for slavery, writ large, which was practiced long before the US was founded, and still is in many parts of the world, is absurd. White people in American ended slavery in the United States, but that part is somehow inconvenient to the white people=bad; black people=good narrative we are now forced to swallow at every turn.
The history of humans is one of cultural and technological change. Not all practices of indigenous people colonized by Europeans are ones that I think many would want to institute across the world, like the many forms of genital mutilation practiced as coming of age rituals?
We should, I humbly propose, consider our amalgam of cultures to be what is and what should be, while picking the best practices among us, rather that dusting the socially unfair and negative practices of those identified as colonized under the narrative rug, while amplifying the same for those presented as colonizers.
Even in the frame of reference that considers European colonizers as oppressors of the indigenous people there when they arrived, leaves out the lack of choice that the lower classes of European society had in where they went, who they killed and what they stole. Britain was famous for 'impressing' British and American citizens alike into their navy as de facto slaves themselves.
When will the time be that we can jettison the divisive language and work toward a better, more fair world for all, without vilifying anyone for their race or ethnic background?
You seem like someone that has yet to learn about the culture of your own indigenous ancestors, and so you erroneously assume that when someone like myself uses the word indigenous, I am referring to people of a higher melanin skin content.
RE: "I think this idea that Europeans=colonizers, indigenous peoples of certain places=colonized doesn't hold up in the wider context of history."
Well I never stated anything that implies that and I actually agree with you on that point. There are plenty of non-European colonizers (Inca, Mound building Turtle Islanders and others) and also plenty of European indigenous placed based cultures. You seem to be reacting to my post based on your interactions with a bunch of "us vs them" type folks that look at some genetics as "good" and "noble" and some as "nasty" and "colonizers". that thinking is nonsense. We were each gifted free will by the Creator and we are more than the sum of our DNA and outward appearance.
Do you subscribe to the religion of statism? (for more info on the illusive Statist Religion, read this https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/implanted-sociopolitical-identities and this: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/lest-we-forget-war-is-still-a-racket )
If so, this may be the source of your confusion with my use of the terms here.
All people have an indigenous history, for some of us, it is buried under a lot of centuries to millennia of multi-generational psychological warfare, but that indigenous connection to a place based culture is always there, no matter how hard confused and arrogant techno-optimists try to bury it with implanted socio-political identities.
RE "As you said, in Ireland, in pre-colonial times, they had developed similar practices as those on Turtle Island. However, in the context of Ireland, who are the colonizers?"
No I said the Gael (a pre-Irish and pre-statist culture that lived there for millennia had developed those regenerative food systems). Irish people came much much later than the Druids and their Brehon successors.
Yes the Romans were the first that brought the machinations of a centralized imperialistic and anthropocentric regime to the shores or Eire (aka Ireland).
More more on that history read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/decolonizing-st-patricks-day
The language I use is not divisive, it precisely describes specific behavior choices of individuals and statist regimes (not entire genetic lineages from past to present as you presume).
Would you like to impose your language usage preferences onto all of humanity like the "they-them-those" cultists?
I would advocate that you stop being so defensive about your genetics and assuming others are hating on you, abandon the cult of statism and get to know your own pre-colonial place based indigenous ancestors (as they have much to teach you and all of us).
For more on my own personal journey to do just that, read: https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/retracing-the-footsteps-of-my-indigenous
You also seem like someone that thinks I am invested in what some have called "the noble savage myth", read this and then check back in with me.
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
What a great article. I am saving the links so I can share them with the grandsons. Thank you!
This is incredibly detailed information and so wonderfully expressed. Thank you
Methane is a rather short lived molecule in the atmosphere, despite the hysteria that has been centered around it.
Methane lasts for about 12 years (when 50% has degraded) before turning into CO2 and water, but in those 12 years it has an effect on climate that's 83 times the effect of the CO2. That means for those 12 years (and in fact the scientific effect is considered to last for around 20 years in total) it not only mimics CO2 on steroids, but it can generate the surge in climate conditions to reach and pass 'tipping points' such as the collapse in glaciers or ocean currents, or indeed the heat waves that might destroy crops, start forest fires, or kill people.
Note that even when those 20 years are over, it still becomes CO2. Note also that estimates of methane quantities, especially under the coastal waters, are so massive that even triggering 1% or 2% would be a global catastrophe.
Well, whether or not Methane is as problematic as conventional "climate change" alarmists suggest, feeding it to live stock is a great idea. You would have some very happy and healthy animals regardless of methane variables.