Chapter 2

 Chapter two of Healing Grounds also stood out to me because of how it focused on Black communities and their relationship to land, which felt like a really important shift in perspective. Instead of only talking about land in a general sense, the chapter highlighted how Black Americans have historically been denied access to land and how that has had lasting effects. It made me think about land not just as something cultural or environmental, but also as something tied to power, opportunity, and stability. What I found especially interesting was how the chapter talked about the history of Black farmers and land ownership, and how much of that was lost over time due to discrimination, policies, and systemic barriers. That loss is not just about property, it is about generational wealth and independence. I feel like that is something that does not always get talked about enough in discussions about sustainability or agriculture. It added another layer to what “healing” really means in this context.I also liked how the chapter showed examples of Black communities reclaiming land and reconnecting with agriculture. It made the idea of healing feel more active and ongoing rather than just something theoretical. These efforts are not just about growing food, but also about rebuilding community, creating access, and challenging systems that have excluded people in the past.Overall, this chapter helped me see how environmental justice and racial justice are closely connected. It made me realize that you cannot really talk about one without the other, especially when looking at the history and current realities of land access in the United States.

There is another way

What stuck with me the most from this chapter is the adoption of co-op and mutual aid organization in the Southern black communities during the Reconstruction era. Developed in a time of necessity when opportunities were not equally distributed to black Americans, groups such as the Colored Farmers Alliance, Freedom Farms, and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives allowed freed slaves and their descendants opportunities that would not have been there for them otherwise. While the lifespan of some of these co-ops was short lived, the impression they left is lasting. We talk a lot in this class about how many of society's problems can be traced back to money. Cooperatives are a step in the right direction, leading away from hierarchical economic statuses, and towards a more circular economy. We do not have to live within the bounds of our current system, there are other options that just need to garner enough support. The individuals and families who founded these co-ops did not have an easy life, but by banding together they were able to accomplish something in a system that worked against them. The same can be done now in an age with extreme wealth disparity that continues to grow, perpetuated racism, sexism and classism, and corrupt political parties. 

Additionally, the work Olivia Watson is doing at Oliver's Agroforest exemplifies working out of the bounds of the current system. Our common agricultural practices are gravely detrimental to the health of the planet. Simply knowing how to grow your own food, feed your community, and do it in a way that is beneficial to the planet is a great act of resistance against oppressors. Having a farm that functions in accordance with nature and the ecosystem is a dream of mine, and it's uplifting to know that it is possible and there are others working towards the same goal. 

Healing Grounds Chapter 2: African Indigenous Agriculture and What it Teaches Us

African Indigenous agriculture not only teaches lessons of the land, but also of humanity and the nature of the world. These strategies also provided a route of perseverance against the societal discrimination in the agricultural sector. The agricultural practices were accessible to economically struggling black farmers and provided food security, economic foothold, and sustainable self sustenance. The parallels between people and nature/land are so prominent, and that was really displayed in this chapter of Healing Grounds. Diverse forest plant life was destroyed, land stripped of biodiversity, for the sake of farming cash crops and rapid urbanization. Black farmers faced oppression and systemic racism through the seizing of their land, increased taxes, declining of loans, discriminatory laws and acts, and being forced into contract labor. Families who acquired land were targets of lynching and violence, which were further efforts to completely displace black farmers from their land and impoverish the black farming community as a whole. Through this extreme hardship, refuge was found within, what this chapter called, then “hidden Black subsistence economy,” saving them from borrowing money from their landlords or going hungry. This system was based on black agroforestry, resisting chemical agriculture, and drawing on strategies originating in Africa that supports biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, while also providing farmers with a huge variety of crops. The principle of this type of farming is to plant crops around trees, and to build up and sustain the existing, or one existing, ecosystem. I love how this strategy of sustainable agriculture was described, in a mutual thriving of the farmer and “farm,” of the oppressed ecosystem and oppressed peoples. The mutual benefit of mindful farm practices, providing freedom and self-sustenance, through collaboration and the unifying relationship between people and forest. Mutual flourishing learned from the land, and implemented, historically, by African Indigenous peoples and black farmers.

40 A & a Mule

 Sounds too Good to Be True

"I certainly wasn't expecting that," says every good-intentioned man with a plan. I can only imagine the type of words used by Gen. William T. Sherman after having his efforts halted by a new president. I think it allows us to see the nature of the beast when it comes to policy implementation within a bureaucratic structure, at the very least, a faulty system. This has been happening since the time the world began revolving. 

While providing immediate benefits in January only 4 days after being proposed by Gen. Sherman, President Lincoln helped establish the order with a bureau to allow for proper redistribution of lands and essentially forming a body of overseers that would ensure the act went into effect through the sovereignty of the people it was entrusted to, the Freedmen. 

It goes to show that although we may not agree with policies, we can learn to dialogue and resolve injustices working together towards a common goal. Gen. Sherman although, never boasted that he wanted racial equality for all. I can't help but think, hope, that just maybe a change of heart occurred and the General realized something needed to be done to acknowledge, repair, aid, in some sense the damage done to his brothers in arms. The rice coast (roughly 350 miles) was given to the Freedmen for many motives; punishing the Confederates who started the war, but more importantly a beginning act towards social aid and the beneficence of all. 

Works Cited: 

Myers, Barton. "Sherman’s Field Order No. 15." New Georgia Encyclopedia, last modified Sep 30, 2020. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/shermans-field-order-no-15/

• Lite

Black Land Matters

     A lot of stories were covered in this chapter, specifically around Black-owned or operated farmland either here or in other parts of the world, either in the past, or present. What stuck out to me the most was that African and other non-European and non-American agricultural practices were and still are similar to practices being pushed by organic farmers today. And the idea of pesticides being introduced in this light made me view them as a weapon to weaken a community, just like killing the Bison. 

    We read before that the USA specifically targeted Bison in an effort to weaken native communities, and while I don't think this is as targeted, the thought occurred that policy makers may have been so quick to push pesticides not only for the short term production increase, but also because they knew many Black farm owners would not be able to afford them, and would then be out-produced and out-priced by wealthier white farmers. Conspiracies aside, the glamour of pesticides was seen through by Carver, yet they still went on to dominate agriculture, even today. 

    It was said that in the late 1700s, one person couldn't believe how productive some farmlands were on the Virgin Islands, all year-round. Yet we did not adopt those agroforestry methods as status quo, and had little agroforestry until the late 1900s. I don't know if there is some witty phrase for this, but it feels like every time the USA has tried to rid of something in an effort to do it the USA way, it goes south, and then the original ways are re-adopted and re-branded as new methods discovered in the USA. Ah, the internet calls it "reinventing the wheel". 

Black Land Matters

 I found it jarring that black people woud be arrested and forced into doing even more unpaid labor as punishment. People were attached to slavery even after it was supposed to end, they relied on it, despite it being completely inhumane. As long as they were meeting their quotas and making money, their workers didn’t matter. There wre so many loopholes that were used during this time period so people could continue to have lots of workers for free or for a low cost. 

It took a long time for black people to have the ability to own land in the U.S. and things had begun to look up at the beginning of the 1900s. However, the amount of black land owners greatly decreased throughout the century. Discrimination continued, white people were so against black farmland, ignoring the fact that black people were the backbone of the success of their farms. 

Hearing Olivia Watkins' story highlighted the hardships that people who managed to keep their land had to face. Being pressured by white neighrbors to give up portions of land, attempting to discourage them from creating livelihoods out of farming. What was salvaged must be cherished. It’s important for black land owners to have someone in their family to pass it down to. The conservation of legacy has to be protected to further open doors for black people that were once closed. Instead of being pushed out, they should be welcomed and considered vital to agriculture. 

Like various other articles we’ve read in this class, the importance of indigenous knowledge is brought up in this chapter. Building a relationship with the land instead of fighting against it. Olivia Watkins studies how different plants or fungi interact with the environment, and how that knowledge can be applied to revive the land. I think it’s important for this idea to be regurgitated constantly in order to keep the regenerative agriculture movement alive.

Chapter 2

In the chapter from Healing Grounds, Liz Carlisle shows that farming is not just about growing food, but also about land, history, and fairness. One thing that stood out to me is how she explains that a lot of what we call regenerative farming today has been done for a long time by Black farmers. It made me realize that these ideas are not new, they just have not always been recognized.

The story of Olivia Watkins helped me understand this better. She grows mushrooms in the forest without cutting down trees. This shows a way of farming that works with nature instead of trying to control it. Her way of farming is about respect and taking care of the land, not just making money.

The chapter also talks about how enslaved Black people used similar farming methods to survive. They grew different crops together and took care of the soil so it would stay healthy. These were smart and helpful ways to farm, but they are often not talked about today. This connects to what we have discussed in class about how some groups already have good solutions, but they are not always listened to.

Another big idea in the chapter is land loss. After the Civil War, land that was supposed to go to Black families was taken away through unfair rules and racism. This made it hard for Black farmers to keep their land, and it still affects them today.

Overall, this chapter made me think about farming in a different way. It is not just about food, but also about fairness and history. Healing Grounds shows that taking care of the land also means fixing past wrongs and giving people a fair chance.

Recent studies on modernizing ag

 https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/11/2325

I was reading Chapter 2. It made me think about our discussions on how industrial agriculture is affecting the environment. I wanted to find an article that looked at what is happening because of our switch to modern industrial agriculture. The article talks about how agriculture's impacting the environment and how farming practices are changing ecosystems in big ways. Using fertilizers, pesticides and heavy machinery has increased crop yields but it is also causing soil to break down polluting water and reducing the number of different plants and animals. Even the tiny life in soil that is necessary for healthy crops is being disrupted which makes it harder for farms to stay healthy in the run.

Agriculture is a part of the problem when it comes to losing biodiversity around the world. As farms get bigger and bigger and only grow one type of crop habitats are disappearing. This means ecosystems are becoming more fragile. These farming systems may seem to be working for now.. They use a lot of chemicals. Because of this they are more likely to have problems with pests, disease and changes in the climate.

These findings are very similar to what Liz Carlisle writes about in Chapter 2 of Healing Grounds. Carlisle explains that industrial agriculture is not hurting the land but also affecting rural communities. Both the article and the book show that environmental problems and social issues are closely connected. For example soil that is in shape does not just hurt ecosystems it also threatens the livelihoods of farmers.

Carlisle's work show that we need to change the way we do agriculture. We need to use regenerative practices. This can help improve the health of the soil. It can also protect biodiversity. Support farming communities for years to come. Industrial agriculture needs to change. We need to find ways to make farming more sustainable so that industrial agriculture can be good for the environment and good for people. Agriculture needs to be done in a way that's good for the environment and good, for people and this means changing the way we do agriculture.

"Black Land Matters"

 Olivia Watkins, a black agroforest in NC articulates her progress from working on different farms with varied products and applying her learned knowledge on inheriting a 40-acre farm.  It expands on the racism black farmers endured through black land disposition.  How these injustices need to be address for meaningful agricultural healing. Watkins grows mushrooms on this land and shows have crops are cultivated without removing the trees. Calling his practice "spawn run" as opposed to "colonizing". Not clearing forest for profit. A method of black ecological tradition relying on care, reciprocity, and non-extractive relationships with land.  The story basis is that regenerative agriculture is not unique with deep roots in black agrarian knowledge.

It is noted that black slaves practiced regenerative agriculture as survival strategies, that were ecologically sophisticated systems that enriched soil and biodiversity, prior to regenerative branding. Highlighted practices included agroforestry, polyculture and Inter cropping, communal land management, and soil-building practices.

Land granted to black farmers by Tecumseh Sherman, post-civil was taken away through white supremacist intimidation. USDA unfair lend and credit practices negatively affected black land ownership. Property laws enacted made it possible to seize heirs' lands. Carlisle correlates soil health and land justice, explaining why blacks hold only 2% farm ownership today. She concludes attention be given to black land justice for building a sustainable climate-resilient future.

Healing Grounds Chapter 1

In the first chapter of Healing Grounds, Liz Carlisle really shows that farming is not just about producing food, it is about relationships between people, land, and power. What stood out to me is how she connects agriculture to larger systems of control and inequality. It made me realize that food justice is not just about access to healthy food, but also about who has control over food systems and whose voices are actually being heard. It also introduced the idea of animals, like bison mentioned in chapter 1, can graze in a way that is helpful for the soil and  agriculture and aren’t fenced in like cattle which tied into systems we have already had but moved away from for large industrial traditional farming practices that are bad for the environment and effect soil health.Carlisle talks about Indigenous practices and regenerative agriculture in a way that shows these methods are not new, they have just been ignored or pushed aside. That connects to what we have been talking about in class about how marginalized communities often already have sustainable solutions, but they are not the ones being listened to or given power.I also considered how this connects to the Rodale Institute and the work being done with organic and regenerative farming. It makes the idea of “healing grounds” feel more real because it shows how improving soil health and farming practices can also support communities. It is not just environmental, it is social too.Overall, this chapter made me think about food justice in a deeper way. It is not just about making sure people have food, but about restoring relationships, acknowledging the importance of history and animals, and giving power back to communities that have been pushed out of the conversation.

Thoughts on Carlisle Chapter 2

 This chapter focuses on the loss of a closed-loop farm. Black farmers who have historically been systematically shut out of government programs and were greatly impacted by Jim Crow have developed some of the most complicated regenerative techniques in recent history. 

“Big Ag” has just recently discovered that planting only one crop, or monocropping, kills the soil, while Black farmers in the South have known this for over a century. Black farmers practiced livestock integration to naturally fertilize the land, polycultures, which are a variety of crops to keep the soil full of nutrients, and resourcefulness by transforming land into productive ecosystems sans the expensive chemical inputs. For these farmers, soil sustainability was a survival strategy rather than a goal. With dead soil comes dead independence. 

The most gut-wrenching part of this chapter is her critique of how we have modernized farming. The transition into industrial agriculture is not just hurting the planet, but it is also being used as a tool for racial dispossession. Farming became more capital-intensive, which forced Black farmers off their land. The deep-rooted communal knowledge was traded for shallow-rooted cornfields. Soil exhaustion goes hand-in-hand with the displacement and exhaustion of black bodies. 

    Books on regenerative agriculture typically feature a checklist for buying cover crop seeds and to stop tilling. However, the social structure within a farm is just as important as the biology of the first. A healthy ecosystem cannot occur when it is built on a foundation of exclusion and theft. We need to change who gets to own the farm rather than just how we farm. We have to look at land trusts and reparative justice in order to heal the land. A high output, high stress, and low diversity environment is hurtful and we should instead go back toward a “Homestead” model that prizes community and resilience. The innovations that we are looking for are not in a laboratory but are in the stories of black farmers pushed off of their land in the 20th century.

Bring Back the Bison

It has been common knowledge for me that colonizers hunted off the bison in North America to cut the supply of sustenance to Native Americans, but I didn't know of the attempts in recent years to bring populations back to their native lands. When Carlisle was painting the picture of what the prairies once looked like, I couldn't help feel sad, as that image will likely not be restored to it's former glory in any of our lifetimes. 

Humans, white ones specifically, have meddled so deeply in the fabric of nature, that we have to meddle our way out of it but now with many more obstacles from other meddling-projects we have done. We can bring back the bison, but must appease ranchers that we forced to ranch, shake hands across borders we invented, work around infrastructure that did not exist two, three, four hundred years ago. It was easy for the colonizers to go about hunting bison down, but to try to reverse those attempts at the same level of ease is impossible. I can't help but wonder what the state of the world would be had the British been less of colonizers and more of cooperators, community builders. By trying to dominant the planet, we have just created endless loops of problems for ourselves. This is evident when looking at the differences between cattle vs bison ranching. The bison dwell much better in the disparate Montana weather than cattle. Of course they do, they have evolved for thousands of years to live in that landscape. Had they simply learned something from the natives, maybe we wouldn't be in such an agricultural mess right now.

Healing Grounds Intro and Chapter 1

The biggest mistake humanity can make, in my opinion, is thinking we know anything. As in, thinking we can “fully understand” anything to the point of being able to have complete control or that we can just “own” anything. Nothing is ours: not the air, the oceans, the animals, the plants, the ecosystems, or the land we live on. More so, what baffles me, is that the productivity indigenous communities obtained was actually acknowledged by the colonists who ripped their land away from them. Despite this, they ignored the equilibrium ecosystem that was extremely successful they were presented with, and just absolutely destroyed it. It’s almost impossible for me to understand how they could’ve so blatantly just proceeded with their atrocities and inefficiencies- and what? Think that there would be no consequences to their destructive and uneducated behavior? It makes me so upset that colonialism ripped away so much from nature, the land, and the Indigenous people who had been living their for generations. 

Healing Grounds Chapter One

     Initially when the book opens up by telling the story of Latrice Tatsey trying to learn about their ancestors and the relationship with the native buffalo herds of the region, it appeared to be a lighthearted tale. It then elaborated into the atrocities the federal government has committed to Native Americans by corralling them into tiny plots of land, and then further dividing them up into subdivisions and forcing white culture onto them by sending off children to boarding schools and forbidding them from talking about their own culture. The shockwaves of these laws forced upon the native population can be seen as Tatsey struggles to find history or culture of their ancestors either through written documents or through word of mouth passed down through generations. The implications this has on the ecology in the region deepen when buffalo are deemed inefficient and cattle replace them. this part is interesting to me since country wide blanket laws are not typical of the United States government, shown through the fact that we primarily operate under state and regional laws rather than allowing the federal government to dictate everything however, the government believed using one or two specific breeds and species across the entire country rather than capitalizing on biodiversity would be considered "efficient". Logically speaking, using native species in regions they would thrive in like buffalo rather than pushing them out and replacing them with cattle, which struggle to thrive in hotter, drier climates seems to be contradictory to how the United States operates. 

Healing Grounds 1

     The first couple parts of this book dive straight into some of the largest core problems this class covers within food justice, sovereignty, climate, and addressing past discrimination tactics in agriculture. Carlisle tells us that none of them alone are enough, and that specifically addressing past discriminations is a part of both sovereignty and even mitigating climate change. 

        Carlisle describes to us the saddening story between settlers and natives, and specifically gets into the bits related to agriculture. She says that indigenous peoples who lived along the prairies were not mere spectators, but maintainers, overseers. They were able to form a relationship with the nonhuman parts of the prairie that enabled them to know exactly when and where to do "x" or "y" like burning, rotating, harvesting, etc. all without the use of modern machines and excess inputs. Instead, they mostly used fire and buffalo. It's described that buffalo show traits that may prove them to be better for agriculture than cattle. They can resist harsh weather better, defend themselves against predators better, and are actually active in maintaining their own environment which in turn aids biodiversity.

    Unfortunately, along came the settlers who apparently saw sustainable well being as a threat and decimated their way of life. Whether or not they saw their way of life as a threat or not, I don't know, but what is true is that they did try to destroy their way of life by literally killing the backbone of it, Buffalo, as well as the people themselves sometimes. When the indigenous peoples were willing to negotiate or surrender, they were boxed into a plot of land and forced to abandoned their ways due to it being almost impossible now. 

    Carlisle mentions now that groups such as Blackfeet have attempted to reintroduce buffalo to restart their way of living. She mentions as well that settler farmers, beginning in the late 1900s, started to see that what they were doing was not sustainable, and that regenerative practices were better for the land. She notes this as good, but also insufficient as it does not address the deep relationship with the land that indigenous peoples had. 

    Nowadays, I do not foresee majority of American farmers and ranchers garnering as deep relationships with the land as indigenous peoples. Some definitely could, and should, but I would assume most farmers are doing it because they need money or the family has been farming for generations, not because they love the land and feeding others. I'm sure many do like the fact that they feed others and many likely love the land, but I would assume most would leave if they had enough of those dollars saved up, and I wouldn't blame them since modern agricultural practices tend to leave farmers with depression at rates wickedly higher than the national average for other working Americans. If we could actually adopt some hybrid agricultural system that involves connections to the land and animals, as well as is on a scale large enough to feed the world, and does not involve degrading inputs, I imagine the depression rate in farmers would not only go down, but it would go negative, leaving more farmers happier than the rest of us. I believe someone in a reading we read earlier this semester, indigenous to somewhere in Central or South America said that their relatives told the settlers that if the settlers did what their people did, they would all live long, happy lives.

Connections to Chapter 1

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8793816

The first chapter really made me want to look into where our agriculture was in the past vs how we view it today. The points mad on how agriculture isn’t just this neutral system that naturally improved over time but was shaped by colonization, displacement, and inequality led to me finding research done by Emma Layman. The article pretty much sums up how all the damage and inequality in the current system isn't random, just as we've mentioned in class.

Modern agriculture is usually talked about like it’s just the result of progress and better technology, but honestly, it’s a lot more complicated than that. According to Emma Layman and her co-authors, agriculture in the U.S. is deeply connected to colonization and slavery, which means it didn’t develop in a fair or equal way. Instead, it was shaped by systems that took land from Indigenous people and relied on forced labor, setting up patterns that still exist today.

Colonization basically turned land into something to be owned and exploited for profit. Indigenous farming practices, which were often more sustainable and connected to the environment, were ignored or pushed aside. At the same time, enslaved people were forced to work the land, and that became a major part of how agriculture functioned. Even though things have changed over time, a lot of those same ideas, like prioritizing large-scale production and profit, are still part of modern agriculture.

Chapter 1

Healing Grounds Chapter 1 focuses on the work of Latrice Tatsey and her efforts to bring bison back to their natural grazing lands. Instead of raising animals in fenced areas like cattle, bison move across the land in a way that naturally improves the soil. Their grazing helps increase nutrients and store more carbon in the ground, which can help reduce the effects of climate change. Tatsey also shows how restoring bison is not just about the environment but also about reconnecting Indigenous communities with their traditions and land.

The chapter explains that the removal of bison in the past was done on purpose as a way to control Indigenous people by taking away an important food source. It also points out that many communities of color have long used farming methods that work with nature instead of against it. These practices existed long before modern industrial agriculture.

Overall, the chapter connects environmental health with social and cultural healing. Bringing back bison supports stronger communities, restores traditional knowledge, and helps create a more sustainable and independent food system.

Healing Grounds: Introduction and Chapter 1

  The introduction of this book touches on how there were debates about agriculture. Even though regenerative agriculture was a promising idea, it was still debated even by people who seemed like they would support it. No matter how good something sounds, there are still issues that exist within it. It’s important to figure out what methods are best in order to truly reach success.

It also brings up how a lot of people who helped out with figuring out how to create a more sustainable agricultural system are indigineous people or immigrants. In general they were people who did not have titles, meaning they may have been previously overlooked or ignored. I agree that it’s important to look at the history of agriculture in the U.S. because before colonization, the land was treated much differently by indigeneous people and groups. “Reversing the clock” may be able to efficiently aid agriculture currently. 

I found it facsinating the positive impact that buffalo have on plants and how the relationship between them and the land is mutual. The connection of buffalo grazing to assisting with climate change is a concept unheard of to me until now. They are the keystone species for Native American praries. This makes me wonder why they aren’t more common in our current agricultural system, they have so many benefits. How did we come to the conclusion of using cows? Is it just adopted from European farming practices? But this also makes me wonder if differnet species are better off in different biomes, surely buffalo can’t be the keystone species all over the country because of the differences in climate and such. 

The first chapter does a lot of comparing European farming to indingenous farming, it highlights the issues with our current system that has been “broken from the start”. The importance of having a connection to the land and working with it instead of against it is crucial for regenerative agriculture. Instead of continuing with the colonizer’s method of farming, we need to adopt and return to what previously has worked. 

Healing Grounds - Chapter 1

 Liz Carlisle posts Latrice Tatsey work of reintroducing bison back to grazing the land, as opposed to fenced in pastures with cows. Tatsey an ecologist and a member of the Blackfeet nation supports this showing that bison grazing increases organic soil matter and increase carbon soil content This increases soil quality and fights against climate change.  She relates ecological restoration with cultural restoration by reengaging indigenous peoples back to their ancestral land and better soil restorative practices.  Highlighting Blackfoot community in reclaiming their right to manage and define their own food systems, guided by cultural and ecological labor.

The removal of bison, a primary food source was a core colonial strategy to control the indigenous populations, Black, Latino, and Asian American communities have a long history of regenerative agriculture.  Their more natural soil regenerative ideas have been established long before industrial activities disrupted them. These original concepts have a more holistic way of managing our environment demands to increase a natural production.

Racial violence inflicted on the indigenous people by land dispossession, labor exploitation, loss of food sovereignty suppressed these proven traditional ecological ways.

Bison restoration encompasses restoring tribal decision making, developing a community involvement, with the use of cultural protocols, providing a goal of long-term stewardship.  Her thoughts on rebuilding bison herds leads us to ecological healing that leads up political healing. Producing cleaner indigenous knowledge uses, combating climate effects.  Focus on not just sustainable but providing food sovereignty.

Carlisle Introduction and Chapter One

  Regenerative Agriculture is a very common buzzword in the "eco-conscious" areas of the internet. This is often pitched as a way to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and return it to the Earth. However, Liz Carlisle calls for caution with this. By treating regenerative agriculture as a “new” modern invention, we are being colonizers as well as ignorant. 

The carbon farming hype is confronted at the very beginning. The innovations being used by current white, midwestern farmers are rooted in Asian-American, Indigenous, and Black agricultural traditions. The word “healing” within the title isn’t about fixing just the Nitrogen cycle; it is about healing the rift between people and the land they live upon. We are unable to fix the problem without looking at the extractive logic that causes it to break in the first place. This logic is tied to slavery and settler colonialism.

Previously, the North American prairies were one of the most effective carbon-sequestering machines on the planet. It was carefully managed through indigenous practices, which included the stewardship of buffalo and the use of fire. The indigenous model was reciprocal, while the colonial model is extractive.

The nice thing about this perspective is the idea that Regenerative Agriculture is not a technical fix. This narrow focus of how many tons of Carbon dioxide we can sink into an acre of land is just another form of extraction. We are still using the Earth as a tool rather than a companion.

Real healing occurs when we realize that the people who are most harmed by our current food systems are minorities. These minorities are the ones who hold the solutions to our problems. This first section of the book can serve as a deprogramming for those who feel we can just buy our way out of climate change with some organic labels. We need to acknowledge the grounds they were to begin with and whose labor was used in order to exhaust them.

Healthy Dialogue Yields Better Results!

     The food planning systems being addressed seem to be of interest due to publicity and their focus on equity. With the goal in mind of better understanding how the municipal government steward's food justice. I will only be using two examples I believe are relevant to the overall picture of food justice, specifically pertaining to a healthy dialogue between big organizations. Having been a part of the Rotary Club for a number of years, one gets to see firsthand how a healthy dialogue can make or break the good an organization can promote in an area.  

 

The PSRFPC is mainly comprised of stakeholders that have a mutually beneficial relationship with the metropolitan planning organization, aiding them in making decisions. These are the guys influencing decisions behind closed doors. Interestingly enough, for managing four counties, everyone seems to be stuck on the same issue. Specifically balancing out inequity through addressing the multifaceted factors that come into play. When the Muckleshoot tribe member raised her hand to speak out about the sheer and utter misuse of what, I would argue not only accessibility to education but also the land. Stating that over 300 kinds of food were harvested prior to white contact!  

On that same token, the rancher that spoke out blatantly stated that experts in the field, literally, hate being told what to do and how to do it. Even if the land is owned by the county, going back to the issue of sovereignty, the government shouldn’t overextend its welcome on every personal choice. I appreciated the fact that they acknowledged, land protection does not equal accessibility, nor just stewardship. Using the example of the rich person buying the home as a luxury countryside property, does indeed not make it accessible. Personally, I wasn’t expecting to hear such things, I figured that the structure of a vertical bureaucracy was at play, however, it seems that the PSRFPC is speaking on necessary concerns. Even with these two minuet examples in the vast array of decisions being made, if this is what the discussions are typically like, count me in to have an organization as such here in PA!  

Municipal Food Justice Efforts

After reading the food justice efforts enacted by PSRFPC and the City of Seattle, it felt to me that, while progress is yet to be made, the City had more success in implementing and maintaining policies than PSRFPC. The interviews from those associated with PSRFPC seemed to lean slightly in the negative and pertaining to the pitfalls and gaps in progress made by the PSRFPC. There seemed to be a bit more gripe with the practices, or lack thereof, performed by the organization, whereas the City, with its own pitfalls and gaps, seemed to be attempting a lot of good, but are stuck behind bureaucratic nonsense and red tape. I felt the PSRFPC is making a lot of promises and not really even attempting to live up to them. I wondered why this was, as they are both municipal entities, they must struggle with the same obstacles and hurdles from larger governments; so why a seemingly smaller effort from the larger of the two? Well, I believe that is exactly why, because it is a municipal body covering a larger area of land. I wonder if as you move up in size of governmental bodies, does their effectiveness decrease? Are smaller, localized governments be more effective in implementing sustainable food security/sovereignty programs? I think a big driver in many of the issues we face in the 21st century is the amount of bureaucracy we face when doing something as simple as gardening or selling your own food. If people and communities are given the ability to create systems that work best for them, whether it be food, economic, or social sovereignty, I believe that long term viability of said system is achievable. 

Food justice and municipal government in the USA

Horst’s article on food justice and municipal governments shows how local governments can play a big role in shaping who has access to healthy food. One thing that stood out to me is how cities often say they support food justice, but their policies don’t always match that goal. For example, the farmers markets we previously discussed, favoring privileged white people but created with the intention to serving minority, under resourced communities. It made me think about how “access” isn’t just about having food nearby, but also about affordability, cultural relevance, and whether people feel welcome in those spaces. I also thought it was interesting how Horst highlights the limits of relying on local governments alone. Even when cities try to make changes, they’re often working within larger systems like capitalism and federal policy that make real change harder. This made me wonder if food justice efforts need to be more community-led rather than government-led, or at least a stronger mix of both. Overall, the reading made me realize that solving food injustice isn’t just about adding more resources, but about changing who has power in the food system and how decisions are made.  

Food justice in bigger levels than municipalities

 So the article I found, “Planning for Regional Food Equity,” is about how not everyone has the same access to healthy food, and a lot of it has to do with how regions (not just cities) are planned. Like, it’s not just random, there are actual systems and policies that make it easier for some people to get fresh food while others are stuck with like convenience stores or nothing nearby.

The main point is that planners (the people who decide how cities and regions are organized) can help fix this. They can improve transportation so people can actually get to grocery stores, support local farms, and make policies that spread food resources more fairly. The article keeps stressing that you have to look at the regional level, not just one city, because everything is connected.

This connects to the Horst article because that one talks about food justice too, but more at the city level. Horst is basically saying local governments try to fix food problems, but they run into limits. The “Planning for Regional Food Equity” article kind of builds on that by saying yeah, cities alone aren’t enough, you need bigger, regional cooperation to actually make a difference.

So overall, both articles are saying the food system isn’t fair, and fixing it is complicated. Cities can try, but if the whole region isn’t involved, it only helps so much. Which is kind of frustrating, but also makes sense.

Anyway, the main takeaway is that where you live really affects what food you can get, and fixing that takes more than just one city trying its best.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2020.1845781#abstract

- you have full access to the article using the KU library institute ^-^