Well, I suspect the offhand statement in the article that grazing on land can enhance the soil if done right is a reference to holistic planned grazing, which I think is a psuedo-scientific sham. There are a number of articles that have criticized this process, such as this one here (https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html). However, I always think comparison of critiques to direct analysis of statements given by supporters of an idea are important, so here's a link (https://www.savory.global/faqs/) to the creator of holistic planned grazing's website, where he explains in 'Where's the Science?' that 'Given the uniqueness of each situation and context, processes can never be replicated as can prescriptive practices.' Things that cannot be replicated are not science. That's my position, anyway. Others may disagree.
As I said, it's not really relevant to the main idea of the article.
I agree with your statement that communities can be oppressive and violent, and that we have to be careful about viewing community as some cure-all solution to these problems. It certainly is not. I do think that collective ownership of farmland has considerable advantage over the family farm model or the factory farm model. However, I think Dr. Taber makes an incorrect assumption when she says that moving to this model is helpful for decolonization and allowing colonized peoples to obtain power. She notes that the Hutterites, who have adopted this model, are a powerful force with the ability to exercise great autonomy. However, she does not question whether their whiteness and alignment with certain conservative values like homophobia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZtIAo6juLY) may account for their power and the fact that they are still allowed to practice this form of collective management where others like the Native peoples she mentioned were essentially forced by the government to stop this practice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2019-07-13 11:05 pm (UTC)As I said, it's not really relevant to the main idea of the article.
I agree with your statement that communities can be oppressive and violent, and that we have to be careful about viewing community as some cure-all solution to these problems. It certainly is not. I do think that collective ownership of farmland has considerable advantage over the family farm model or the factory farm model. However, I think Dr. Taber makes an incorrect assumption when she says that moving to this model is helpful for decolonization and allowing colonized peoples to obtain power. She notes that the Hutterites, who have adopted this model, are a powerful force with the ability to exercise great autonomy. However, she does not question whether their whiteness and alignment with certain conservative values like homophobia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZtIAo6juLY) may account for their power and the fact that they are still allowed to practice this form of collective management where others like the Native peoples she mentioned were essentially forced by the government to stop this practice.