This is bad. Bad science, bad understanding of history, bad understanding of indigenous land use, bad conclusions. If you’re going to talk about impact of colonial genocide on the autochthonous of...
This is bad. Bad science, bad understanding of history, bad understanding of indigenous land use, bad conclusions.
If you’re going to talk about impact of colonial genocide on the autochthonous of “the Americas” you have to include Brazil, hein. The 16th century saw massive deforestation by colonists, beginning with the export of brazil wood for European markets, then with the formulation of farms which required huge swaths of land for agriculture and animal farming as well, and then there was the advent of sugar mills which required even more huge swaths of land, as well as the concerted effort to cut back the forest in order to limit indigenous proximity (beyond the aldeia system, which I won’t get into here). This says nothing of the actual deforestation of just normal colonial business of building walled towns and carving out space for “civilization” to take root.
Also what reforestation???? The implication that the indigenous were originally responsible for large-scale deforestation is absolutely patently untrue. FFS, they gleefully cite Clement et al, without apparently having read him that thoroughly if at all: they could not have read the work they cited if they can even suggest the “dark earths” Clement et al are discussing is due to the kind of massive deforestation that led to the reforestation they require for their model afterwards.
Findings of paper (taken from the first paragraph)
This is bad. Bad science, bad understanding of history, bad understanding of indigenous land use, bad conclusions.
If you’re going to talk about impact of colonial genocide on the autochthonous of “the Americas” you have to include Brazil, hein. The 16th century saw massive deforestation by colonists, beginning with the export of brazil wood for European markets, then with the formulation of farms which required huge swaths of land for agriculture and animal farming as well, and then there was the advent of sugar mills which required even more huge swaths of land, as well as the concerted effort to cut back the forest in order to limit indigenous proximity (beyond the aldeia system, which I won’t get into here). This says nothing of the actual deforestation of just normal colonial business of building walled towns and carving out space for “civilization” to take root.
Also what reforestation???? The implication that the indigenous were originally responsible for large-scale deforestation is absolutely patently untrue. FFS, they gleefully cite Clement et al, without apparently having read him that thoroughly if at all: they could not have read the work they cited if they can even suggest the “dark earths” Clement et al are discussing is due to the kind of massive deforestation that led to the reforestation they require for their model afterwards.
So yeah, this is bad science.