Home » Political » The wolf and the woods.

The wolf and the woods.

Perhaps the story of Little Red Riding Hood isn’t about the wolf, but about the woods.

Perhaps it is about taming the woods, making them less dangerous.

Perhaps it is teaching us that forests must be tamed, must be mastered.
That if they cannot be civilized, they must be destroyed.

Is this why large stands of trees are seen as “undeveloped”?

Is this why they are seen as a resource to be exploited, rather than one that serves perfectly as it is?

And why does something have to serve to be considered valuable? How human-centric is that – that if it does not serve us, it can be destroyed?

How much “development” do we need if we no longer have trees to create oxygen for us?

Should there be a limit on how many people per acre there can be in a given community? Should there be a mandatory people to tree ratio to ensure enough oxygen?

And what about the animals living in the forest – untamed, wild? Do they not deserve a place to live? Why is it considered progress to evict them by chopping down their home in order to build new ones for people?

Is this the new colonialism? Is this not what white settlers did to the native people who were already here?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s