Decolonizing Requires a Shift In Thinking—Enter the Wolf

Maine, at one time, likely was home to two species of wolf—the smaller eastern wolf (Canis lycaon) and the larger gray wolf (Canis lupus).  DNA evidence showed that the former was certainly here, and the latter is believed to have also ranged through northern Maine.  As part of the colonization of the Dawnland, many species of animals were killed off (i.e., extirpated) or entirely destroyed (i.e., went extinct).  For the colonists, who were animal herders, the idea of large predators that could potentially kill the animals they wished to raise was unacceptable.  So, they set about killing every wolf they could find, and even established bounties on wolf kills.  But, they weren’t just hunted, the wolves were also trapped and poisoned.  The goal was not just to protect livestock but to eradicate this species.  And that is exactly what colonists did.  To understand how effective the European colonists efforts were, the gray wolf was reduced to just 5% of its original range in North America.

By the mid-1800s, the wolf was essentially gone from Maine.  With the absence of this predator, the eastern coyote (a species that is displaced by wolves) moved into the area.  Unfortunately, they do not fulfill the same ecological function due to their slightly smaller size.  This immigrant is memorialized in the Passamaquoddy language:  pili-malsom (“new wolf”).  While the high-pitched howls of coyotes are a commonly heard noise in Maine, the haunting howl of the wolf, a symbol of wilderness in stories, fictional movies, and documentaries, is no longer part of the local soundscape.  In other words, our forests are no longer true wilderness because the large predators, which also included the mountain lion, are gone.  Our ancestors, the European colonists, made changes to this part of the world based on their belief system.

 

Our society today has entered into a stage where we seek to understand the impacts of colonial worldviews—on indigenous people.  The conversation rarely broaches the landscape, except to point out how it harmed Native Peoples.  And while this is an important topic, what of the many animals now missing from Maine, some of whom are now gone forever (e.g., passenger pigeon, great auk, sea mink, wolverine, walrus, caribou)?  What about the eastern wolf?  Why do we try to assist with the recovery of Native culture and language (to decolonize ourselves) but we don’t try to recover the iconic animals that represent the very idea of wilderness, that represent an uncolonized Maine.  I would offer that our anthropocentric attempts at decolonization are still very much steeped in colonialism—because the focus is only on people.  The Indigenous Peoples of Maine did not have a hatred of wolves (or other large predators).  They lived in right-relationship with these beautiful animals and incorporated them into their language, their stories, their songs, and their spirituality.  To truly decolonize our minds (and hearts), we need to let go of our hatred and fear of the wolf and return this animal, where it is possible, to the lands they were driven from.  Said another way, we need to learn to share Maine as did those who lived here before colonization.  To continue to focus on social justice as it relates exclusively to people is just a continuation of colonization.

We are so WEIRD

We are so WEIRD

As the title states, we are so WEIRD (western educated industrialized rich democratic).  And, we don’t just believe it to be normal but also “best” for humanity to be such (i.e., others should be like us).  This belief system blinds us to our biases and prevents us from any substantive change.  In fact, we hold values that prevent people from coming together, from sharing, and from solving problems we collectively face.  And until we are willing to critically examine how the society we have been raised within shapes what we believe and hold dear, there is little hope of stepping off this path we were set upon millennia ago.

The Outlooks

The Outlooks

Growing up in the United States and residing in a variety of cooperative living situations, you come to understand different people come to these circumstances with very different outlooks on how humans should collaborate under the same roof.  Following is a synthesis of my observations based not just upon the actions of other humans but also my personal evolution and aspirations.  The tiers of outlooks are highly motivated by both the American culture and the individual maturity of each member of the home.  There will always be exceptions, and some people are giving in one area and selfish in another.  Importantly, there is no judgment being cast here, nor is this a statement that our community members have achieved anything in the way of communal enlightenment.  This is simply a summary of how individual outlook will influence the relationships that form around that person.  Perhaps this can be useful for others in considering how their outlook promotes or limits their personal growth.

You Are Not Native To The Planet

You Are Not Native To The Planet

I have heard and read many times people expressing that they are native to the planet as if this gives them a special privilege to be anywhere they choose to be.  Of course, such a statement betrays a colonial understanding of what native-ness truly is.  I would offer that native isn’t something you grant to yourself, rather it is state of being that comes from choices you make.  It is to be deeply intertwined with place, and without a specific place, native-ness isn’t possible.

What it looks like in a culture with negligible dietary wisdom

What it looks like in a culture with negligible dietary wisdom

Most of you reading this post (including me, the one who wrote it) hail from a modern culture with broken food traditions and minimal dietary wisdom.  At the same time, we all descend from cultures with deep connection to the land and diets with high nutritional content.  These facts are often unseen, kept as ungraspable wisps of lore by a society that is convinced it is at the pinnacle of everything human.  Yet, there are so many examples of poor dietary wisdom that could be highlighted from this country.  Here are just a few.

Where does culpability lie?

Where does culpability lie?

The recent train derailment in Ohio that spewed over 100,000 gallons of vinyl chloride (over one million pounds) is a tragedy.  It is also another opportunity to examine this culture of progress and how it views such incidents.  Vinyl chloride is a flammable and carcinogenic chemical that is used in the manufacture Polyvinyl Chloride (a kind of polymer) and finds it way into electronics, automotives, construction, medical supplies, packages, and paints.  Almost every household has items that are manufactured with vinyl chloride.  This cancer-causing and hepatotoxic (i.e., poisonous to the liver) substance is transported as a liquid and frequently moved on rail cars.  Given enough time, some accident is going to occur that causes the release of this chemical into the environment at the cost of all those beings who live in the vicinity.  Is Norfolk Southern to blame for this catastrophe?

The Original Agreement

The Original Agreement

We live in a time where guilt is both frequent and intense—especially within certain circles of ancestry, income, and inheritance.  Guilt has become so manifest that we are to feel remorse now when we consume other life.  I would request that you (please) take a moment with this thought.  As a heterotroph, humans must consume other beings (or portions of beings) in order to derive the calories and nutrition they need to survive.  They are like many thousands of other mammals—they can’t absorb energy from the sun directly but need to consume beings who can (autotrophic plants) or being who eat the beings who can (other heterotrophs).  Some of these other beings that humans consume feed primarily upon plants, some eat primarily other animals, and some a diverse mix.  And none of these heterotrophic beings feel guilt for consuming the foods their bodies are designed to ingest, digest, and excrete save for one:  humans.  It has become so habitual to feel guilt in this age of wokeness that we now even feel remorse for engaging in biologically necessary behavior.

I Trust Science!

I Trust Science!

There has been an explosion in the recent frequency of signs, memes, and social media posts about trusting science.   I find this exceptionally troubling given that they are being used to silence evidence-based research that undermines their belief about a particular topic—in this case, primarily COVID-19 information.  More to the point, most of the time “I trust science!” is being expressed it is being used in a way that is hardly separable from the logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, where because someone possesses a credential, their words/writings are considered “truthful”, even if they can be shown to be based on biases, falsehoods, or unfounded beliefs.  Credentials do not, in and of themselves, make statements truthful.  It is the evidence upon which the statements are based that builds a solid explanation of a particular phenomenon.  But, nothing is ever conclusive (i.e., science does not build indisputable facts), and if you believe so, you are practicing a religion.  Further, there are other ways of explaining events than solely through the lens of the scientific method, but that is another topic for another time.

Forever Chemicals, Freshwater Fish, and Freedoms

Forever Chemicals, Freshwater Fish, and Freedoms

Many people are becoming aware that this industrial society has done terrible things to our earth mother.  And, to be clear, essentially all of us (myself included) have promoted environmental contamination with our purchasing and use of modern products.  This issue is highlighted in the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) phenomenon.  As this point, based on our desire for comfort and convenience, the rivers throughout much of the United States are contaminated with these endocrine-disrupting, cancer-causing, and long-lasting substances.  Please allow me to be a little more blunt than usual as forever chemicals necessitate it.  Because we don’t want to use effort to clean our cooking pans or fabrics or upholstery, the fish in many of our rivers are severely contaminated to the extent that a single meal translates to increased PFAS in the blood serum of humans (and any other organism that eats fish; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122024926?via%3Dihub).  Because we don’t want to get wet (i.e., be uncomfortable for any length of time), our clothing is now a major source of PFAS contamination that is making food that humans eat unsafe for consumption.  And, we could go on (such as packaging in the fast food industry).  Many of the significant sources of PFAS are based on our need for unprecedented comfort and convenience—they are not necessities.  Therefore, we have to contend with the fact that our population is so lazy and so fragile that we are filling up the soil, air, and water with chemicals that cause cancer in living beings.  That’s quite a privilege (one we never discuss)—the privilege to use completely unnecessary and harmful objects, devices, and coatings for the simple reason that they make life easier.  That is a freedom worth examining critically.

Botanical Medicine in the Deep Winter

Botanical Medicine in the Deep Winter

Now that the snows have blanketed the northeastern United States, I sometimes hear in my circles a wish that certain plants had been collected during the growing season for medicine.  Of course, the often-voiced solution these days is to purchase medicines from natural food stores and online shops.  From within the consumer culture, this seems like a perfect remedy for an apothecary that is wanting for specific medicines.  And while I would voice that supporting herbal medicine has immense advantages over supporting pharmaceutical companies, there is still a level of nature disconnection, a reliance on long-distance transport, and information that is missing when we consider the winter landscape devoid of healing teachers.  All of this contributes to a willingness to allow trauma to the land (because we rely on land elsewhere for food, medicine, clothing, etc.).  It isn’t until we directly interact with our local landscapes for necessary items that this society will (finally) critically examine how it uses (read:  exploits) the environment.