Then each of you will read ONE of the later chapters carefully (please skim the other). In class, you will have 3 minutes to summarize that chapter’s arguments for other students, so come prepared with an outline of the chapter’s central argument and supporting evidence. This will reduce the reading load for each of you, and it will also give you experience in teaching the main points of an argument to other students.
Chapter 11 (239-264): Jo, Emily, Mallory, Diana, Roxanne
Chapter 12 (265-291): Hanna, Dee, Erin, Sam
Chapter 13 (292-318): Alev, Kendall, Katie, Cory
Chapter 14 (318-347): Amanda, Stevie, Matt, John,
BLOG Due 11:30: QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
Discuss whether Dean seems to believe that the loss of the Atlantic rainforest is irrevocable, or whether the forest can be restored. How could conservationists use forest history to restore the rainforest? For more information about current restoration efforts in the Atlantic forest, you can visit the Nature Conservancy's website for their "plant a billion trees" campaign (all in the Mata Atlantica).
Discuss whether Dean seems to believe that the loss of the Atlantic rainforest is irrevocable, or whether the forest can be restored. How could conservationists use forest history to restore the rainforest? For more information about current restoration efforts in the Atlantic forest, you can visit the Nature Conservancy's website for their "plant a billion trees" campaign (all in the Mata Atlantica).
If I'd looked earlier and found out what an irritating format this ebook was in, I would have just bought it.
ReplyDeleteDean doesn't seem too enthusiastic about the prospect of restoring the Atlantic rainforest. The various barriers--from economic incentives to not restore the forest, to the logistical difficulties involved, to local apathy--are outlined in detail, but Dean doesn't really go into potential solutions. The last sentence("The last service that the Atlantic Forest might serve, tragically and forlornly, is to demonstrate all the terrible consequences of destroying its immense western neighbor") pretty much seals that interpretation for me.
It's hard to know how you would even begin to restore these forests to anything approaching what they were pre-colonization; as Dean points out, we don't even know what a large proportion of the forest's species even were, as they went extinct before they could be catalogued. Plus the extinction issue itself, of course.
But, assuming someone was to give it a shot, you'd want to consider the narrative descriptions of the forest, but you'd have to supplement those with other kinds of records. Outside of reconstructing the history of a specific area, knowing about how the land was used, especially about techniques like swidden farming, would give you some basis for thinking about what kind of changes the land might have undergone. Plus there are also the physical changes to the land--like the leafcutter ant colony mounds--that might give you clues about how long ago a particular area was primarily trees, how long ago agriculture, etc.
About the plant a billion trees thing: I wonder what effect planting a billion trees at the same time would produce in terms of a forest. It seems odd to me that a forest would be of trees all about the same age, though I guess it's the same thing as what happens after fires. But I'm envisioning a giant forest where the canopy is five feet off the ground and the wildlife is all, “What am I supposed to do with this?” And not only does this new forest not have those animal/insect colonies already, but presumably the landscape (including soil and water) is pretty severely changed in many places. Is the land actually capable of supporting the kind of forest it did before?
I don't think “restoration” is necessarily a good term for cases like this. It implies things that we can't necessarily deliver and certainty that we might not have. I kind of like “reconstruction” instead, but it doesn't have the same ring to it (it sounds more calculating) which is important to consider for PR/outreach, plus now that I'm considering the word out of context with other words I keep thinking of the Civil War. So maybe not.
Erin
It seems a little heartless to make fun of the efforts of a nonprofit to restore a decimated natural area, but after spending so much time with Warren Dean’s With Broadax and Firebrand, the idea that planting a billion trees would save the Atlantic Forest of Brazil seems almost laughable. To me it appears indisputable that the Atlantic Forest cannot ever be restored, especially considering the estimation of projections that over half of the species native to the forest have likely disappeared (350). I think one of the most significant impressions that I have gotten from this case study is the fragility of complicated biological systems, an impression that leaves me pessimistic about the future of human coexistence with wild nature.
ReplyDeleteBut, so as not to be completely pessimistic, I have to agree with Erin that though the time for any feasible restoration may have long passed, a redefinition of the project goals along with the application of another title may result in a successful effort. Additionally, forest history itself cannot restore the rainforest, but may allow us to save time, effort, and money by allowing us to learn from past mistakes. For instance, it is very clear to me that the imperialist imposition of management from colonialist and then Brazilian governments has heretofore only resulted in forest degradation, and cannot possibly be a successful component of its recovery. It appears that The Nature Conservancy has come to the same conclusion, as two of their six tenants in the “Plant a Billion Trees Campaign” address the need to establish rapport and assistance to private landowners of this forest area.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Erin and Annie both note, Warren Dean does not appear to hold out much hope for the restoration of Brazil’s Atlantic Forest.
ReplyDeleteHis With Broadax and Firebrand offers a classic declensionist narrative, chronicling centuries of destruction largely wrought by greedy and “ignorant” European colonists, and continued by their progeny in an independent Brazil. He shows humanity at its very worst, exploiting fellow humans and nature in one ill-conceived get-rich-quick scheme after another (brazilwood harvesting, sugar cane cultivation, cattle raising, gold and diamond prospecting, coffee growing, chemical manufacturing), each dealing critical blows to forests while failing to raise standards of living for the great majority of people. The reader encounters missionaries spreading disease (along with the Gospel), slaveholders brutalizing human “property,” scientists blaming impoverished indigenous communities for forest declines, industrialists unmoved by the tragedies their forest-depleting, pollution-spewing enterprises have inflicted upon the poor. The later chapters that explore the advent of environmentalism in Brazil offer some glimmers of hope for saving remnants of forest but have a decided “too little too late” tone.
Dean’s discussion of the forest’s past reveals why it would be so difficult to restore. The Atlantic Forest emerged over the course of millions of years as a result of the interplay of many factors great and small, including tectonics, climate, and a near infinitude of biological relationships. Erin rightfully points out the huge gaps in what is known about the forest. People, even when they paused from wholesale destruction to actually study it, could hardly hope to comprehend the forest’s complexity. (Dean’s reference on page 15 to the critical importance of a few species of root fungi for succession gives an approximation of the staggering complexity). The Atlantic Forest has shown resiliency, regenerating after ice ages, and even bouncing back from small-scale agriculture. But the scope of destruction increased by orders of magnitude after the Portuguese “invasion” and has continued up to the present age of industrial expansion, factory farms, and rapidly growing cities, casting serious doubt on the forest’s ability to rise from the ashes anew.
Annie offers keen insights into the value of forest history in general and this volume in particular for shedding light on the mindsets and practices that led to the decimation of forest ecosystems. Ultimately, Dean offers up a cautionary tale, which, if heeded, might provide some motivation to protect what’s left of the Atlantic Forest, the Amazon, and other forests around the globe.
-John
Dean’s long history of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest covers centuries of exploitation, displacement, genocide, and destruction—a history, in sum, understood within a simple log line: a common Avatar-esque tale of European conquest to a new land where exploitation and oppression precede the typical epiphany of the value of that destroyed land and that lost native knowledge. The story is nothing new. As Dean writes, in fact “the crown had at hand a precedent for the confiscation and alienation of land” (63). But, he spins an intricate history, observing complicated relationships like leaf cutter ants to slash-and-burn technique, and the price of an African slave to that of a local slave within the context of place and time and a larger history of events—what slavery meant for farming and what farming meant for land. Drawing such connections is no easy task, and Dean assists the reader with relevant questions throughout to tie minute details into the larger context. For example, in discussion of a very convoluted bestowal of land titles and tenure rights, Dean asks, “Would subsistence farmers have adopted more intensive methods” (107) without these complicated measures? Considering alternate histories in this context allows for a deeper understanding of how events, policies and decisions shaped the forest we see today for worse, and as Dean suggests with many of his questions, also possibly for better.
ReplyDeleteI get frustrated in the book’s shift towards a conclusion. Of course “it was not clear how many of the forest’s species still existed” and “it was still less clear whether it might be possible to re-create sections of the forests that had disappeared” (348) by the early 1990s—as early as the 17th century almost all the “attached names to hundreds of species for which they had found some use and in regard to which they had learned habitats, seasons, habits, and relations with still other species”…. “inevitably began to deteriorate, and the forest became strange and without human purpose” (66) as the indigenes were removed from their land. To try to go back then, to the forest as it was, and to the species as they were, is quite a subjective goal if the status of how and were are so unknown. Dean then suggests that government agencies and outside conservation groups are limited in their ability to help, and that “the motivation for preserving the forest must be disinterested then, and it must extend across all levels of society, especially rural society” (362). He continues, “civil society, in nearly all of its individual, as well as private acts, must refrain from further incursions, now and forever” (362). Easier said than done? His conclusion seems oddly simple amidst the very, very complex history he weaves.
-Stevie
With so little of the Atlantic Forest remaining, Dean’s narrative implies that no amount of effort can the forest become even a fraction of what it once was in terms of diversity or expanse. It is a sad tale of how humans, even at our earliest times, affect the make up of the forests. Dean’s comparison of the New World forests to the Old world forests in terms of diversity could be attributed to several things, including climate, but his most striking argument to me was that the diversity stems from the fact that humans did not inhabit the New World until thousands of years after Africa and Aisia, allowing nature to take its course without the interference.
ReplyDeleteI was also drawn to the conversation of the soil in the Atlantic Forests, I was always taught that the soil in the rain forest was of poor quality, not matter how it was converted to farmland. But besides that, it was at the point that Dean commented on the dramatic changes that happen in the soil and its inhabitants that is the end all to be all for the hope of past vegetation to regrow naturally of forcedly in the region.
I believe that what Dean hopes from him work as a warning, is one way conservationist today can use history to restore rainforests. Spreading the word, getting people involved, showing the benefits of the forests and their conservation could make a big difference. It is almost sad that is has to be a well marketed campaign but take Madison for example. It is amazing to see what a group of people coming together for a common good can gain from each other the knowledge and awareness that is generated is very influential.
As others have pointed out, Dean seems pessimistic about restoration of the Atlantic Forest. The damage has been done through centuries of exploitation. He covers the entire history of the rainforest to give readers a sense of where we came from. At the end of chapter 12 Dean states, “The Atlantic Forest might yet be saved, but only in the nick of time” (291). Chapter 12, which deals with “economic development,” ends in the 1970s and for a moment I felt a glimmer of hope. I find it interesting that he put such a phrase in this section, almost in the middle of the book, enticing you to read on because there is hope. I argue that at this point, even if we had turned things around, we still would not have had the same Atlantic Forest we once did.
ReplyDeleteThe forest had already sustained irrevocable damage, especially during the beginning of the chapter of “economic development.” I agree with Annie that although forest history cannot, in it of itself, restore the forest, it allows us to learn from our past mistakes. Learning from our past is a great way to move into the future. Although we will never again have the Atlantic Forest that once thrived before human influence, we can have something wonderful, just different. Even though efforts like “plant a billion trees” do seem somewhat futile, they are still an effort to restore at least a miniscule fraction of what we once had and that is worth fighting for.
-Hanna
Right away in the first chapter Dean gives a quick description of the Atlantic Forest today and the forest of the past as well as its beginning and evolution. When he states, "It is hard to say whether it is appropriate to refer to the Atlantic Forest in the present tense (12)," I prepared to read a depression account of the destruction of the forest. Also, a couple pages later, he describes the complexity of the forest and how difficult it would be to maintain its integrity or renew it once disturbed. It seems obvious right away that this ecosystem cannot easily be restored once deteriorated.
ReplyDeleteIt was good to read the first portion of Dean's account of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest detailing the account of a deeper history of the region, rather than skipping to present day issues and happenings. By the end of the book we reach the conclusions of social injustices, the desire for wealth and development, political instability, deforestation, pollution, etc. These are all very true and important issues, but I have previously been made aware of all these. It was beneficial for me to reach further back into history to obtain a greater understanding how all the current issues have come to be. It was interesting to read about how the indigenous people had both used the land sustainably in some aspects but also exploited the land, especially after the arrival of Europeans.
John gave a good quick summary of the cascade of exploitation and degradation of the social, cultural, and biological aspects of the region since the arrival of Europeans. It is made known that not only are there biological implications for restoration efforts, but also social, cultural, and political barriers standing in the way.
An example of this is the history of the struggle of the environmental movement to get off the ground, the struggle to gain momentum, and the struggle to accomplish any substantial feats in the protection of the forest. Only after immense disaster are there any real changes, and even then, the changes are minimal, especially by factories.
In the final chapter, Dean describes the immense effort to increase the population of the golden lion tamarin and reintroduce it into the wild. This species seems to serve as a sort of poster child for the movement, but to me, it seems to only hurt the movement. The huge effort, international support and large sums of money can only seem to produce a 30% survival rate for reintroductions. How is this supposed to gain support for the protection of the forest, reintroduction of species and eventual restoration? This seems to only show that even a gigantic effort and endless funding results in little gain, even failure. I'm afraid the plant a billion trees campaign may also suffer similar failures...
-Amanda
There seems to be a consensus among previous posters that Dean does not hold out much hope for the restoration of the Brazilian Atlantic forest. Considering all of the obstacles faced by this region, restoration is almost a laughable goal. This is also taking into account the past five centuries of exploitation of people, forests, plants, animals, waters, and natural systems.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 19, Unsustainable Developments, Dean goes into the history of dam building and hydroelectric power. Waterways, being only one very important piece of the ecological puzzle, have been irrevocably changed. Rivers were reversed to create reservoirs, dams created lakes burying ancient villages and current cites, and the impact on fish and aquatic communities were not even mentioned. The entire landscape of the forest has been changed in much the same way.
Dean does look at the restoration of native forest communities as an unreachable goal, however, this does not mean that no one should try. Little victories such as protected areas and national parks are steps in the right direction. Looking to the future, these may be the most feasible means of preservation and restoration. Although these are not on a large scale, looking at the numerous conflicts in the region, these may be the first steps toward larger initiatives.
-Cory
Again, echoing what most of the blogs have already said, Dean is pessimistic about the possibility of restoring the Atlantic Forest. Although native cultures did have impacts on the land, they largely left the forests alone because it was of little use to them. However, once the Europeans arrived irreversible destruction of the forest took place almost immediately.
ReplyDeleteLike John said, European greed led to exploitation of the land and atrocious crimes against the indigenous populations. Both indigenous cultures and populations were destroyed from contact with Europeans mainly due to slavery, Christianity, and wide spread epidemics. Dean discussed how there were two major migrations to South America. The first was when the indigenous populations migrated from African/European/Asian continents and the second was when the Europeans came in the 16th century. The difference between the two migrations that largely affected cultural, land, and forest degradation was that Europeans explored in search of new lands to exploit to make their homelands richer as oppose to looking for a new homeland all together.
As soon as the Europeans arrive, Dean writes with a dark tone regarding their exploitation of the forest. However, it is not until the arrival of the 18th century with the gold rush and increased national competition in Europe that he talks about irreversible changes to the land.
Following the gold rush every successive money making scheme near the Atlantic Forest continued to degrade the landscape. During the time of colonization the European crowns were unable to control their colonies because the interests of the powerful colonists was to accumulate wealth (82). After their independence state governments were also unable to control deforestation and implement conservation because it was not in either the state or its corrupt politicians economic interest.
Sam Reuter
3/21
In the beginning chapters when the Tupi culture is discussed the question raised for me is what if colonialism never happened? Would the Atlantic forest have been destroyed in a similar manner? Dean writes that the Tupi culture was in many ways at odds with the forest. It seems we cannot get away from the idea that humans are invaders. We are the leader when it comes to invasive species. Both waves of invaders had a fear of nature. But I think the difference between the Tupi invaders and the later Portuguese invaders is that the former’s fear of nature seemed to manifest itself in awe, while the latter’s fear was manifested in ignorance.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, the Tupi thought of the jaguar as an adversary that was better to kill than to be made angry. The Europeans did not have the attitude of respecting their adversary. They scorned their adversaries and belittled their importance. Dean writes about the Portuguese’s disregard for indigenous knowledge, “Only oral tradition preserved this culture. Once the indigenes were removed from their habitats, all this information inevitably began to deteriorate and the forest became strange and without human purpose.” (66)
We will never know what would have happened to the Atlantic forest if history took a different course. In some ways, I think that the effort to plant a billion trees is a too surface oriented. It’s like putting a band-aid on a deep historical wound. Maybe we need to think more about what is the “human purpose” in a forest because humans and forests must coexist.
At the very end of the book, Dean writes about people being ignorant of the Atlantic Forest today. He writes that as of 1987, 90% of the people living within the bounds of what used to be the forest had never heard of it. I don’t think change can happen simply because people are informed. People need to be empowered to act and people who are informed but not empowered are left feeling hopeless.
He also writes (in a way that seems he is without hope) that “The motives for preserving the forest must be disinterested…it must extend across all levels of society” (362) He writes that the actions of the peasant farmers need to change just as much as the actions of the upper class. I would argue that the degradation of the forest, as laid out in this book, has always stemmed from societal inequalities, from the Tupi’s distain for women to the present day class system.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDean does not seem to believe that the Atlantic rainforest can be restored. Dean tells the story of the loss of the forest at the hands of humans, mainly due to greed. This idea was cemented to me in chapter 13. The magnitude of corruption and greed, and their effect on the forest was alarming. This exemplified to me the idea of the tragedy of the commons to the extreme. Since there was either no governing body over the forests, or one to corrupt and ineffectual to police the forests everyone took as much as they could for their own benefit. This idea is counterintuitive, extracting a resource that you depend on to the point of collapse instead of conserving it to protect future use. It makes no sense to me the local disregard/dislike toward conservation efforts; however it is a lot easier to understand the apathy of the local poor toward environmental issues with the level of corruption.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin and Annie that forest restoration seems impossible. It is not plausible to restore a forest when you do not know what to restore it to, and many species have gone extinct. I do not believe a true restoration is ever possible, because humans can never understand all of the intricate relationships in an ecosystem. The best we can do is to research enough to try and understand all of the species and relationships to try and restore forests to the best of our ability.
I apologize for this post being late; I was under the impression that we could miss two blogs instead of just one. (I miscalculated and counted a blog for next week when we don't meet).
ReplyDeleteThe chapter that I read closely was chapter 12, "The Development Imperative." I enjoyed this chapter's discussion about the dynamic relationships between the conservationists and non-conservationists in the 20th century, during such a politically chaotic time in Brazil. The country was driven by this idea of "development," as were many other countries, but at many points in the government and military's decision-making, the harmful side effects of expanding and developing were not mitigated. Although conservationist leaders did make their way into the political scene pretty late in the game, their work never lasted and the Atlantic Forest's landscape was severely affected.
I found it interesting, though, that when conservation efforts and the conservation movement (although relatively small and unsuccessful in the 1990's) picked up, one of the supporters' central arguments was almost exactly parallel to that of "the development imperative." On page 284 Dean writes, "...awareness was growing among public servants that conservation, and even preservation of nature was one of the attributes to a self-respecting state." They recognized that from a global perspective (or at least in comparison to developed countries like the United States of America), they were slacking in their conservation/sustainability efforts.
The feel and fear of foreign superiority and the need to catch up is exactly the spark that catalyzed the thrust toward economic development, and ironically the same went for the conservation movement. In some ways it can help a country to compare themselves to other countries and make certain decisions based on those comparisons, but in Brazil's case their leaders certainly need(ed) to recognize that their unique resources should be handled differently than the way the United States, Germany or India does.